Баланс аккаунта

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses that this is a passthrough call to user.json, that the response is returned raw and unmodified, that the exact balance field name is unverified on the live platform, and that read_payments access may be needed. This is exemplary transparency about uncertainty and side-effect-free 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following caveats are all substantive rather than filler. The description is longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence communicates a distinct, useful fact about invocation or response handling.

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 output schema, the description compensates by explaining the raw response shape, the relevant account.balance field, the permission requirement, and the unresolved schema risk. Nothing needed to call this tool safely or interpret its result 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 input schema is empty, and the description nonetheless explains that there are no parameters and that the target account is determined by the token. This adds the only meaningful implicit-parameter context needed for correct invocation.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: it returns the current VK Ads account balance, including available funds and currency. It also names the underlying user.json account field and clarifies that the balance is tied to the token's account, which separates it from sibling tools like get_user_info or raw_request.

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?

It conveys that this tool is for reading the balance of the token's account and that it takes no parameters, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it never explicitly says when to choose get_balance over alternatives such as raw_request or get_user_info, nor does it give exclusions.

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