get_my_balance

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by clarifying that 'available' returns the unlocked balance, hinting at a locked/unlocked distinction. It does not mention auth requirements, and output is covered by an existing output schema.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by tight per-parameter notes. No filler; every sentence carries information, though the 'Args:' block format is slightly verbose for two simple fields.

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?

A simple read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values; the description fills the remaining gap by documenting both parameters. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit routing against the sibling get_my_balances.

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 carries the full burden and does so for both parameters: cointype is explained with ticker examples (BTC, AUD) and available is explained as returning the unlocked balance. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get balance details') and scopes it to 'a single coin', which implicitly separates it from the plural sibling get_my_balances. However, it never names that sibling, so the agent must infer the distinction from the singular/plural naming.

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 phrase 'for a single coin' implies when this is appropriate versus a multi-coin variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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