get_balances

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response categories (available, pending, total earned, total withdrawn) and indicates it is a read operation by using 'Get' and 'Shows.' However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no authentication, or how balances are aggregated, though these may be inferred from the context.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get all cryptocurrency balances'), followed by a brief list of the data shown. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, no annotations—the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what data it returns. However, it omits details such as potential errors, currency format, or whether the list is comprehensive, which would be helpful for full completeness. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds no parameter explanation, but with 0 parameters, there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 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?

The description uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'all cryptocurrency balances for your merchant account', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_store or get_withdrawal by its focus on balances. No other sibling tool targets balances, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_withdrawal or get_payment_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only explains the tool's basic function.

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