get_extended_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 a key behavioral trait: the tool is not supported on all Kraken account types or regions, and warns that errors may occur. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate.

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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential usage notes. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple read operation, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, limitations, and a fallback alternative, which is sufficient for effective agent use.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema). The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but it explains the output semantics (hold/available breakdown), which compensates for the lack of parameter details.

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 verb 'Return' and resource 'balance with hold/available breakdowns per asset'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_account_balance' by emphasizing the breakdown feature and providing a fallback alternative.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to get hold/available breakdown) and provides a clear alternative: use 'get_account_balance' if this tool errors or is not supported. This helps the agent decide between tools.

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