Get Instances Customers Wallets Balance

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's real contribution is the non-obvious unit convention (whole tokens, not cents) and the composition of total_amount as amount plus earning_amount. That prevents a serious misinterpretation of returned values. It doesn't cover what happens when the wallet has no balance or when a currency is absent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one clarification that matters most (units), then the field formula. No filler.

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 partially pays off by explaining amount, earning_amount, and total_amount, but leaves the rest of the response shape, error/empty cases, and parameter roles unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a three-required-parameter lookup.

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 description coverage is only 33%; only customer_id has any documentation, and neither instance_id nor the path id have descriptions or format guidance beyond examples. The description adds no meaning for any of the three required parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: returns the balance of a BlindPay-managed wallet, with named currencies. It doesn't differentiate itself from close siblings like GetV1InstancesCustomersWallets, GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsById, or GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsYield, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to call this versus fetching the wallet list or the yield endpoints; usage is only implied by the word 'balance'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives despite a crowded wallet-related sibling set.

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