inquery-balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. cached data, what format the balance information comes in, or any error conditions. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loads the key information ('Get current stock balance information').

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 financial data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what balance information is returned (cash balance, stock positions, margin status, etc.), the data format, whether authentication is required, or any limitations. Given the complexity of financial systems and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles documentation.

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') and resource ('current stock balance information') with specific context ('from Korea Investment & Securities'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on balance rather than orders, prices, or history. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like account summaries.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests it's for balance inquiries (vs. order or price queries), the description doesn't mention when this specific balance tool should be used over other financial data tools or what prerequisites might exist.

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