XMLStock: balance

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

Annotations already mark it read-only; the description adds useful behavioral context: the call is free, it also validates keys, and it covers daily expense. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and a bonus behavior with no filler. The main output ('balance and daily expense') is front-loaded.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the return scope and side purpose. A note about the exact response format or fields would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that nothing critical 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 only parameter, 'account', is fully documented in the input schema, including the multi-account hint and empty-meaning-main behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (XMLStock account), the data returned (balance and daily expense), and a distinguishing side purpose (key verification). It is immediately separable from sibling search and auth tools by its core function.

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 implies when to use it: when an account balance, daily expense, or key validity is needed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from xmlstock_auth_status, which likely overlaps with the 'key check' purpose.

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