coronium_get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: account_credit is 'what's actually used to pay for proxies,' crypto prices are 'cached 60s,' and 'not shown per row' indicates output format nuance. This goes beyond a bare 'get balance' statement, though it could mention response format or error cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb ('Get'), and every phrase adds value: explains wallet, crypto valuation, caching, and a formatting caveat. No unnecessary words.

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 0-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (account_credit + crypto in USD) and important nuances (caching, per-row display). Minor ambiguity in 'not shown per row' prevents a perfect score, but overall it's sufficient.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings since there are none, and the schema already reflects this with 100% coverage.

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 function: 'Get the customer's spendable balance.' It specifies the resource (balance) and differentiates from siblings by explaining that it includes account_credit (USD wallet) plus crypto balances valued in USD, which distinguishes it from tools like get_crypto_balance or get_account.

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 when to use the tool (when you need the spendable balance) but does not explicitly state usage context or alternatives. It provides enough clarity for a simple read operation but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to use instead.

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