Get account balance

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is partly redundant. It earns credit by disclosing the auth prerequisite (AMPLERUN_API_KEY) and by enumerating what the response breaks down into, which the structured fields do not provide.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the asset and unit (micro-unit strings) before the field breakdown. Every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so reasonably, naming units and categories plus a 30-day spend window and the auth requirement. It stops short of stating pagination/format details or precision semantics of micro-units, so a token of clarification is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; nothing about parameter meaning needs explaining. The description correctly does not invent parameters and focuses on the return payload instead.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (AmpleRun account balances), and enumerates the exact assets (USDC/USDT) and balance categories returned. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_quote or get_rental without opening any schema.

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 listed balance categories (spendable, held, pending, disputed, withdrawable) imply when an agent would want this tool, i.e. checking funds before renting or withdrawing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to any alternative sibling such as top_up or get_quote.

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