get_cash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, but for a simple read-only balance lookup this is acceptable; no significant hidden behavior is expected.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it optimally concise for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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's simplicity, no parameters, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor details like return format or currency are not specified, but the tool's low complexity reduces the need for further elaboration.

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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially complete. The description does not need to explain arguments, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to document.

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 identifies a specific resource ('cash balance') and an implied getter action, making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_account_status or get_portfolio, but the resource name is specific enough for an agent to infer the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as get_portfolio or get_account_status. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria without explicit exclusions or recommended contexts.

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