yougpu_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb "Get" implies a safe read operation, and the listed fields make the return content clear. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or that no parameters are needed (though that is self-evident). This is adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence that starts with an action verb and lists the key output fields. No wasted words, and the parenthetical enumeration is efficiently packed.

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, no-parameter read tool, the description is fully self-contained. It specifies the resource and the exact fields returned, so an agent knows what to expect. No output schema exists, so the description compensates by stating the return fields.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. There is nothing to explain about parameters, and the description adds meaning by indicating what the returned balance fields represent. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

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 with a specific verb and resource: "Get YouGPU wallet balance". It also enumerates the returned data fields (available, reserved, hourly_rate, total), unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with GPUs, instances, and SSH keys.

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 tool's purpose is obvious, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast it with alternatives. There are no alternatives mentioned, and no contextual guidance like "before creating an instance, check your balance". The usage is implied but not explicitly spelled out.

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