get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It partially meets it by disclosing the composition of the returned balance, but says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior for unsupported exchanges, or whether the read is safe/cached. Adequate but with real gaps for an exchange-facing data tool.

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?

Two dense sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted framing. The trailing reference to 'HIP-3 dexes via the CLI --dex' is brusque and assumes jargon knowledge, slightly reducing clarity for the space it occupies.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates reasonably by naming the returned fields and one important scope limitation. It stops short of covering failure modes for unsupported exchanges or the shape of the response payload, but nothing critical for a successful call is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'exchange' parameter and its alias list, making 3 the baseline. The description adds genuine parameter-tied meaning by warning that the hyperliquid value yields native perps only and that HIP-3 dexes require the CLI --dex path, which affects how the agent should interpret and use that value.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get account balance') and enumerates the exact figures returned (equity, available margin, margin used, unrealized PnL), which separates it from position/portfolio-oriented siblings like get_positions or portfolio. The Hyperliquid scoping clause further pins down exactly what scope of balance this returns.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of the tool (read-only lookup of the account's balance on a given exchange), and the Hyperliquid caveat tells the agent one case where coverage differs. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, so the agent must infer whether to prefer this over portfolio or get_positions.

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