pro_get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it returns balances but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (beyond the optional jwt parameter), rate limits, idempotency, or whether it is read-only. The [PRIVATE] tag hints at access restrictions but is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences plus a [PRIVATE] tag. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by relevant context. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return type (available and blocked balances per symbol) in general terms. However, it lacks details on response format, error cases, or pagination. The tool is simple with one optional parameter, so the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 covers the jwt parameter with a description, and the tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves balances from the PRO Trading account, specifies it returns available and blocked balances per symbol, and distinguishes it from the Simple Wallet. The verb 'Gets' and resource 'balances from PRO Trading account' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states this is separate from Simple Wallet and that funds must be transferred via pro_deposit/pro_withdraw, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus wallet-related tools. However, it does not list explicit alternatives or when not to use it.

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