my_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: authentication requirement, the distinction between cash and position value, and the caveat that available-to-trade is not directly reported until order reconciliation. No contradiction 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?

Three dense, non-redundant sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by an important caveat and a routing instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably covers purpose, relevant caveats, and usage context. It could be more explicit about the return format or units, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Tool has 0 parameters, and the description still adds semantic context about what the snapshot represents and its limitations. With no parameters to document, this baseline is appropriate.

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 states a clear resource (Polymarket cash/allowance for an authenticated configured wallet) and a specific operation (snapshot). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kalshi_balance and paper_positions, and clarifies cash is separate from positions value.

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?

Provides clear context: it is for real authenticated Polymarket accounts requiring local credentialsiard, and explicitly names paper_positions as the simulation alternative. While it does not enumerate all alternatives, it gives sufficient directional guidance for an agent.

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