get_balance_history

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses monthly granularity, the ephemeral calculated `current` entry, that the value may change between requests, and that only months with data are returned. This meaningfully affects how an agent should treat results, especially regarding caching.

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?

Four short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds either scoping, behavioral, or default-value information, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only tool with zero required parameters and rich schema coverage, the description covers default behavior, granularity, and volatility. It does not detail the shape of each history entry, but the lack of an output schema makes that a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 schema already documents both optional parameters with formats and constraints. The description adds the valuable default behavior when no month range is provided, which the schema does not state, so it goes beyond the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get monthly account balance history across all accounts'. The 'across all accounts' scope and 'data behind the Net Worth views' context clearly distinguish it from single-account tools like get_account_balance_history.

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 'across all accounts' and Net Worth view context provide a clear use case, and the default no-range behavior is explicitly stated. However, it does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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