get_balance

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds the specific context that this tool exposes the account credit balance, which is helpful for setting user expectations. It doesn't mention return format or auth, but for a zero-parameter getter, that's acceptable.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and is immediately understandable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only balance getter with good annotations, the description is sufficient. It does not need to list return values because the name and description already imply the output—the balance. The absence of an output schema is not a gap here.

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 input schema has zero properties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none; no ambiguity exists.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the exact resource 'WaveSpeed account credit balance', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with models, pricing, or file uploads. Its one-sentence definition leaves no ambiguity.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool, but its clear purpose (checking account credit) gives sufficient context for an agent to choose it over the unrelated siblings. There are no obvious alternative tools for balance checking, so no exclusions are needed.

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