get_balance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a read operation. The description adds behavior beyond annotations: return format, conversion to display_currency, equity details for Trading, and a rate limit of 60 req/60s. No contradiction.

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 concise at ~120 words, front-loaded with purpose. It is well-structured but could be slightly tighter; however, it efficiently uses each sentence.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers endpoint, account types, return behavior, and rate limits. It is complete enough for correct tool invocation without gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of include_equity_details, the conversion to display_currency, and enumerating account types, which enhances understanding beyond the 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?

The description states 'Get the current balance of one specific account', providing a specific verb and resource. It lists account types and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_aggregated_balances by focusing on a single account.

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 explains the endpoint, account types, and when to use include_equity_details. It implies single-account usage but does not explicitly exclude aggregated use cases; still, the context is clear.

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