get_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly identifies this as a read-style operation, but it does not mention response format, potential errors, or whether the balance is currency-specific. It adds basic transparency but no deeper behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the action, the resource, the account type, and the scoping variable are all present and immediately understandable.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient: the agent knows what action to take and what parameter to pass. The main gap is the absence of any indication of the returned balance format or units, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 the country parameter and its enum. The description reinforces that country is the scoping dimension but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, such as how the country affects the balance result or accepted value formats.

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 specific action ('Get'), a clear resource ('available balance of a CinetPay merchant account'), and a scoping dimension ('for a specific country'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools, which are about payments, transfers, and method/country listing rather than balance retrieval.

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 implies the tool is used when a merchant balance is needed for a country, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is mentioned, so an agent must infer the selection from the sibling names.

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