botwallet_can_i_afford

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing multiple behavioral aspects: it's a check (not an execution), shows fee/cost/balance calculations, warns about approval requirements, and warns about limit exceedances. It doesn't mention error conditions or response format 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence explains what the tool does and its outputs. Second sentence provides crucial usage guidance. Every word serves a clear purpose.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does and when to use it. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what happens with invalid inputs or the exact format of warnings, but it's very strong overall.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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's purpose as a 'pre-flight check before paying' that shows fee, total cost, balance after payment, and warns about approval requirements or limit exceedances. It specifically distinguishes from sibling 'botwallet_pay' by positioning itself as a prerequisite check.

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?

Explicitly states 'Always call this before botwallet_pay if unsure about your balance,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming the specific alternative tool. It establishes a clear workflow relationship between these two tools.

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