Get your premium (USD) balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: orders are refused with 402 when balance is insufficient. However, it does not describe the response format or any authentication requirements, leaving minor gaps for a simple getter tool.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the usage guidance is placed second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns conceptually, when to invoke it, and a behavioral consequence. Minor omissions like response format or authentication are acceptable given the simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none, and the empty schema already covers all (nonexistent) parameters.

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 states the resource ('USD wallet premium balance') and the action ('get'), and the title reinforces it. It distinguishes from sibling get_balance by specifying 'premium' and 'USD', making the tool's specific purpose clear without ambiguity.

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 advises checking this balance 'before ordering' and explains the consequence of insufficient balance (402 refusal). This provides clear when-to-use context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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