nt_account_balance

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. It only states the data returned and does not mention any side effects, safety profile, or edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if accountId is invalid or multiple accounts exist). The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed, and no extra context (like data freshness or ordering) is given.

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, focused sentence that lists the returned values without any redundant words or unrelated details. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and subject, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate: it names the accessible data fields and implies the target is an account. However, it does not describe the response format, units, or how the balance relates to the accountId parameter (beyond what schema already provides), leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 input schema already provides a description for the sole parameter (accountId: 'Account name. Omit for first account.'), yielding 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter beyond the generic 'for an account', so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('for an account'), and enumerates the exact data fields returned (cash value, net liquidation, realized/unrealized P&L, buying power). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nt_account_info, the focus on financial balance values makes its unique purpose evident.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as nt_account_info or nt_positions. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer when this should be invoked.

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