Get Wallet Balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'fetch' and 'current balance summary,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or details the response format (e.g., numeric balance, currency). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive financial data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch the current balance summary') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., authentication needs) and usage guidelines, which are important for financial tools. Without an output schema, it also doesn't describe the return value, leaving the agent uncertain about the result format.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'walletId' documented as 'Wallet identifier.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., UUID) or where to obtain the ID. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('fetch') and resource ('current balance summary for a specific wallet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wallets' (which might list wallets) or 'get_related_transactions_by_wallet' (which might show transactions), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be used instead of 'get_wallets' for balance details or clarify its role relative to transaction-related tools. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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