get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as a read operation (retrieving balance data) and lists the returned fields. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or data freshness guarantees, though these are less critical for a simple read 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?

Single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary and informative. No redundancy or 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the tool's purpose, the required input (exchange), and the expected output fields. No missing information that would hinder usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (equity, margin, PnL), which is extra context beyond the schema's parameter description. This helps the agent understand what data will be retrieved.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('account balance'), and specifies the exact fields returned (equity, available margin, margin used, unrealized PnL). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_positions or get_pnl_analysis.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving account balance on an exchange, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., when to use get_balance vs get_positions). No exclusion criteria or usage context beyond the exchange parameter.

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