Get account balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that Amount is a string in currency units (not micros) and negative means debt. This adds valuable context beyond annotations, though it does not cover all potential behaviors like rate limits or authorization details.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, how it differs from alternatives, and parameter details. No redundancy, well-structured, and front-loaded with key information.

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?

Input schema and annotations are complete; no output schema. Description lists the returned fields and explains the Amount string meaning, including negative values. This is fairly complete for a read-only balance tool, though a bit more detail on other fields could be helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds that the 'logins' parameter defaults to the token's own account and can target specific shared accounts, providing meaningful extra context beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns shared-account balance and finance fields via a specific legacy API. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that the v5 API lacks this method, making the purpose specific and unique.

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?

Description explains when to use (to get balance) and provides default behavior (token's own account) and how to target specific accounts. It hints at not using v5 methods but does not explicitly state when to avoid the tool or list alternatives, though the context is clear.

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