get_broker_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the data semantics of cash/buying power but discloses nothing about defaults, authentication, or failure behavior.

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 short, front-loaded noun phrase with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity also reflects the lack of usage and parameter guidance elsewhere.

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?

For a simple read-only balance tool with strong annotations and schema-provided defaults, the description conveys the core return concept. However, without usage guidance, explicit parameter semantics, or an output schema, the agent is left to infer several details needed for a fully informed call.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely ties the result to 'một tiểu khoản' (a sub-account). It does not explain the broker enum/default, whether account is required, or what happens when account is omitted; the schema's enum and default only partially help.

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 the returned data as cash/buying power of a sub-account, which separates it from sibling tools for accounts, positions, and orders. It is clear but relies on the tool name for the verb 'get' and does not explicitly state the action.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_broker_accounts, get_broker_positions, or get_broker_orders. There is no mention of use cases such as checking available funds before placing an order, nor any exclusions.

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