get_balance_history

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

Despite readOnlyHint already being provided, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the HTTP method (GET), date format (YYYY-MM-DD), default range (30 days), maximum history (12 months), maximum single range (365 days), error condition (404 when no data), response fields (cash, invested, PnL, balance, currency conversion), and rate limit (60 requests per 60 seconds). No contradictions with annotations.

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 relatively concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is dense but informative, combining multiple details. A minor restructuring could improve readability, but it is still efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, API method, parameter constraints, error handling, rate limiting, and response fields. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by explaining overarching constraints (date range limits, default range) that go beyond individual parameter descriptions, providing context for how parameters interact.

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 purpose: 'Get daily balance snapshots over a date range.' It specifies the resource (balance history) and the action (retrieving daily snapshots), and hints at narrowing by account type or ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_aggregated_balances.

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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve historical daily balances) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It does mention date range limits and defaults, which help the agent decide if the tool fits the requested range.

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