qt_get_balances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says "Get account balances." While "Get" implies a read-only operation, it does not disclose whether an omitted accountId returns all balances, what authorization is expected, or what the response contains.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant phrasing. However, it is so minimal that it may be under-specified rather than deliberately efficient, though purely as a concise statement it works.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand behavior, response shape, or accountId handling. The statement only provides enough surface-level information to know what resource the tool acts on.

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 schema exposes a single optional accountId parameter, and the description adds no meaning beyond the property name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify how accountId is used or what happens when it is omitted, but it does not.

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 "Get account balances" clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (account balances), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like qt_get_positions or qt_get_quotes. It is not a tautology, though it does not elaborate on the exact scope of 'balances' or whether it covers all accounts or a single specified account.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, such as qt_get_accounts or qt_get_positions. There is no mention of intended scenarios, exclusions, or how the optional accountId affects the call.

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