queryBalance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the balance fields and parameters, but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist, but it lacks depth for a fully transparent description.

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 well-structured with sections for query parameters, balance information, and use cases. It is concise without being overly terse. The most important information (purpose and parameters) is front-loaded. A minor improvement would be to combine the use cases into the purpose statement to save lines.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns (total, available, frozen balances). It also covers the use cases. However, it does not mention if the response includes additional fields or any pagination. Overall, it is comprehensive enough for a simple balance query, but could be slightly more detailed about the response structure.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: accountCategory (enum with default) and currency (omit for all). It adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the format of the currency code (e.g., ISO 4217), leaving a small 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?

The description clearly states that the tool queries fiat or crypto account balances, and it lists the returned balance fields (totalBalance, balance, frozenBalance). It also provides use cases, which helps understand its purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like getWalletBalance or getAssetDetail, so the clarity is good but not excellent.

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 provides explicit use cases (display before trading, validate funds, show breakdown), which indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest any alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools with overlapping functionality, this lack of exclusion or comparison is a gap.

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