getWalletBalance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that non-zero assets are not returned by default, and mentions UTA manual borrow logic and potential latency. It does not cover other behavioral aspects like idempotence, error states, or output format, leaving gaps.

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 uses a main sentence with bullet points and notes. It is moderately structured but includes some redundancy and could be more concise. Notes add valuable context but increase length.

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 partially explains what the tool returns (per-currency info, risk rate) and includes important notes. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling, and the exact format of the response, reducing completeness for an agent.

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 description must explain parameters. It states accountType is UNIFIED and coin is optional, but does not explain the effect of the coin parameter or how it modifies the output. The meaning of parameters is minimally conveyed.

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 obtains wallet balance with per-currency asset information and risk rate. It distinguishes from funding wallet by referencing a separate endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like queryBalance or getAccountInfo.

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 mentions that for Funding wallet balance a separate endpoint should be used, providing some guidance on when not to use. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus other balance-related tools and does not specify prerequisites or contexts of use.

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