ramzinex_get_in_orders_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is 'read-only' and maps to a GET endpoint, which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes that configured credentials are required. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions or rate limits, though for a simple read-only balance check, these may be less critical.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The structure includes a brief main line, a Persian translation, and a clear 'Args' section. The Persian line adds minor noise but does not significantly detract. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose, though the Persian might be unnecessary for the AI.

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?

The tool is simple (get locked balance for one currency), and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks references to sibling tools or when to use this over others. It covers the basics (params, credential requirement, read-only) but could be more complete by noting differences from available balance or total balance tools.

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 the description must compensate. It explains that 'currency_id' is a 'Numeric id' and 'instance' is a 'Configured instance to use (default when omitted).' This adds basic meaning beyond the schema types but lacks details such as how to obtain these values or format constraints. The description provides adequate but not thorough parameter guidance.

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 'Get the in-orders (locked) balance for one currency (read-only).' The verb 'Get' and resource 'in-orders (locked) balance' are specific, and the read-only annotation distinguishes it from mutating tools. Among siblings like ramzinex_get_available_balance, this one is uniquely identified by 'locked balance', so differentiation is clear.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ramzinex_get_available_balance or ramzinex_get_total_balance. It mentions it requires credentials but does not specify when not to use it or compare with other balance tools. The Persian translation does not aid in usage decisions.

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