portfolio.balance

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

The description indicates the tool is read-only ('View') and has no parameters. In the absence of annotations, this is adequate. No mention of auth requirements or side effects, but for a simple balance view, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences that cover purpose, content, and usage guidance. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to use it effectively. It could mention that it returns a summary, but current content is mostly complete.

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 no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. Schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline 3 applies because parameters are absent, and the description does not need to elaborate.

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 purpose: viewing account balance summary including specific metrics (daily budget remaining, total invested, realized/unrealized P&L). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that no parameters are needed and provides a specific use case.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to check how much budget is left before placing new trades.' While it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, the guidance is clear and sufficient for a simple read-only tool.

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