Get account balance history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description has a low burden. The phrase 'complete available daily balance history' adds a small amount of context about the data's scope, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, date filtering, or account type restrictions.

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 a single, tight sentence that conveys the key facets: completeness, granularity, and scope. There is no filler or redundancy, making it an ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 simple one-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and the rich annotation set, the description is largely sufficient for making a correct call. However, the lack of differentiation from closely related sibling tools slightly undermines an otherwise complete definition.

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%, and the single parameter account_id is documented as 'Monarch account ID from get_accounts'. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily balance history for one account'), making the tool's core purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_recent_account_balances or get_net_worth_history, leaving the agent to infer distinctions from the name alone.

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 is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_recent_account_balances or get_net_worth_history. The single-account scope is implied, but without explicit exclusions or alternatives, the agent is left to guess based on tool names.

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