binance_spot_balances

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it notes that frozen balances include funds from pending orders, balances are real-time, precision varies by coin, and only quantities are shown (no USD valuation). The output example further clarifies the exact structure and status flags, making behavior highly transparent.

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 well-structured with sections (功能说明, 重要提醒, 适用场景, 输出示例) and front-loaded with a summary. While it is lengthy, the example output and warnings earn their place by providing concrete return format and operational caveats. Slight redundancy in the example (e.g., repeated '资金状态') prevents a 5.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's scope, output format via a detailed example, behavioral nuances (real-time, precision, frozen order funds), and usage contexts. There are no gaps in what the agent needs to know to invoke this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of nothing. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the returned data represents (available, frozen, total), but there are no parameter details to elaborate on.

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 tool's purpose: '查询现货账户中所有币种的余额情况，包括可用余额、冻结余额和总余额' (query all coin balances in spot account including available, frozen, and total). It specifies the resource (spot account balances) and the action (querying), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing spot balances and auto-filtering zero balances.

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 clear usage context with '适用场景' (applicable scenarios) listing specific use cases like checking asset allocation and verifying available balance. It also gives an alternative guidance: '如需USD估值请使用价格工具计算' (for USD valuation use price tool). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like binance_account_info or binance_portfolio_account.

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