balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only semantics, zero cost, required credentials (rs_live_* key or wallet-JWT/MCP token), and account-level scoping. The 'post-hold' credit detail also adds useful behavioral nuance about how holds affect available balance.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence covering purpose, cost, auth, and scope, followed by a minimal example. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant restating of schema fields.

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 zero-argument read-only tool, the description adequately covers what the agent will get back (balance, available post-hold credit, account profile), how to authenticate, and how to invoke it. It does not describe the exact response structure, but no output schema exists and the prose-level return summary is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter meanings to document. The example 'balance {}' usefully reinforces that the tool takes no arguments. No further parameter semantics are needed.

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 resource: current Relaystation balance, available post-hold credit, and account profile. It makes the operation type explicit with 'Read-only' and distinguishes itself from siblings like read_baton, create_baton, and mint_token by focusing on account-level balance and credit. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it is for.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: it is read-only, free, and scoped to your own account, which tells the agent this is the safe account-information tool. It does not explicitly name a 'when not to use' alternative, but the resource description makes its role clear among the sibling tools.

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