get_balances

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden here. It adds useful traits: 'requires API credentials (read permission)' and 'Balances are live account facts — never estimate them.' This signals read-only, authoritative data. However, it doesn't cover output shape, error cases, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds auth requirement and behavioral caveat. Efficient and no fluff, though it misses the parameter explanation.

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 is a simple single-param balance fetch with no output schema, the description covers the resource and a live-data caveat hats and the auth requirement)Skip context: no mention of when to prefer this over get_portfolio or get_dual_balances, and the include_zero parameter is left unexplained. Adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the only parameter, include_zero. It does not. The description explains the return object (free, frozen, total) but never tells the agent what include_zero=true/false does. With zero schema coverage, this is a real gap.

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?

Uses specific verb+resource: 'Account balances per coin' with breakdown into 'free, frozen and total'. Clear what the tool returns)Skip confusion with get_dual_balances (dual-product balances) but doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings — that nuance is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_dual_balances or get_portfolio. It mentions requiring API credentials (a prerequisite) but never states conditions for choosing this tool or exclusions. No when/when-not guidance is provided.

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