getWalletBalance

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds behavioral detail beyond that: default filtering of zero/non-zero balances, spotBorrow semantics under UTA manual borrow, and possible latency during extreme volatility. This is useful non-obvious context without contradicting annotations.

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-loads the main purpose, followed by scoping bullets and notes. A few phrases like 'Unified account covers: UNIFIED' are somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 does provide some return semantics (asset info and risk rate per currency) and default filtering behavior. Still, it leaves gaps such as how the coin parameter interacts with results and what the exact response shape is, so an agent may need to infer some details.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not mention the 'coin' parameter or directly map accountType behavior clearly. It mostly restates the UNIFIED enum value rather than explaining how coin affects the response.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Obtain wallet balance' and query asset information per currency including risk rate. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling balance/asset tools like getAssetDetail or queryBalance.

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 gives some context, such as 'Unified account covers: UNIFIED' and notes that Funding wallet balance requires a separate endpoint. However, it does not name the alternative tools or provide explicit criteria for when to use this endpoint over other wallet/asset query siblings.

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