Get net worth

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

Even though readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, the description adds meaningful detail by explaining that values are in integer minor units with pre-formatted display strings alongside, plus the breakdown categories. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent useful knowledge about output formatting without contradicting the read-only nature.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by concise details on breakdowns and value formatting. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what is returned (totals, liquid assets, breakdowns) and how values are represented. It doesn't explicitly describe the top-level structure (e.g., object vs. list), but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential context.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (no properties), the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description focuses on the return payload instead, making the tool's behavior clear without needing parameter explanations.

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 reports the user's current net worth, specifying the exact components (total assets, total liabilities, liquid assets) and breakdown dimensions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_net_worth_history by emphasizing 'current' net worth, making the scope unmistakable.

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 context makes it obvious this is for a current snapshot of net worth, and the straightforward scope implies it should be used when current values are needed rather than historical trends. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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