wallet

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the data categories returned (available/pending balance, history), which is real behavioral content. However, it says nothing about whether this is read-only, what authentication/session is required, how much history is included, or whether calls are rate-limited.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the returned data, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about the result, and it gives just a high-level content summary. For a zero-parameter read tool that is close to adequate, but the shape and scope of 'history overview' (time range, limits) remain undefined.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing further to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the call needs no arguments.

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 the resource (wallet) and the two things it returns (available and pending balance, plus a history overview) in a single specific phrase. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic listings, but it never positions itself against the closest siblings (get_transaction, list_orders), so an agent still has to guess whether 'history' overlaps with them.

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?

Usage is only implied – 'balance and history overview' suggests checking funds or activity, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when get_transaction or list_orders would be the better call. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing help.

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