get_balance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: returns free, used, and total balance, and supports optional currency filtering. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or confirm that it is a read-only operation, which is a gap given the lack of annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the return details and parameter behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only balance tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its primary parameter. It could be more explicit about return format or error handling, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the optional 'currency' parameter filters the balance to a specific currency, and that omitting it returns all currencies. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account balance'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by describing its return values (free, used, total) and optional currency filter, making it unambiguous among the provided trading tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve an account balance for all currencies or a specific one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from sibling tools like get_positions or get_open_orders.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.