tokonomix_get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does mention the authenticated key, implying authentication is needed, and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose rate limits, response format, or any potential errors or side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence of 12 words that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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 trivial read-only getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not specify the response structure, but the tool's simplicity and the explicit mention of balance and tier make it likely the agent can invoke it correctly. A fully complete description might mention when the balance is unavailable (e.g., unauthenticated), but that's minor.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('credit balance and account tier'), and it is distinct from all sibling tools which handle queries, models, skills, and onboarding.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose—use when you need the current balance or tier—but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. The description does not reference sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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