pro_get_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by flagging [PRIVATE] and by clarifying that returned balances are separated into available and blocked amounts per symbol. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds distinct value: scope, separation from Simple Wallet, transfer mechanism, return semantics, and privacy. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only balance tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is complete. It states what is returned, the account context, the relationship to deposits/withdrawals, and privacy. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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, jwt, is fully documented in the input schema with its optional nature and authentication guidance. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Gets balances from PRO Trading account.' It also differentiates this tool from Simple Wallet, making its scope unambiguous. The return content ('available and blocked balances per symbol') further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 clearly scopes usage to the PRO Trading account and explicitly distinguishes it from Simple Wallet. It also explains the necessary transfer path via pro_deposit/pro_withdraw, which helps an agent understand account architecture. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for Simple Wallet balance reads, so guidance stops short of full alternative routing.

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