Retrieves an Avito seller's wallet balance, including real money and bonus funds, from the marketplace API.
Wallet balance: real money and bonuses (GET /core/v1/accounts/{user_id}/balance/). Returns JSON: {"ok": true, "data": {"real": ..., "bonus": ...}}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already declared. The description adds the endpoint path and clarifies it returns real money and bonus balances as a JSON structure. This matches annotations; no contradiction and no destructive behavior to disclose.
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?
Extremely concise: two lines cover the function purpose, endpoint, and return shape with no filler.
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?
Tool is trivial (no params, read-only, output schema present), and description gives enough for an agent to know what it returns. Minor gap: no mention that auth/API key context is implied or how errors are reported, but the simplicity and sibling ecosystem make this sufficient.
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?
There are 0 parameters)Skip; no schema to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves wallet balance separating real money and bonus, with an explicit endpoint. The name 'avito_get_balance' matches this well. Sibling tools are all in different marketplaces or broader categories (auth, sections, etc.), so distinguishing is straightforward — though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling, the purpose is specific enough.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. For a simple balance-checking tool with no parameters, the context is self-evident, but the description doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites like authentication being handled separately. No explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.