Get balances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the tool returns balances and names an endpoint; it does not describe auth requirements, response format, date-range semantics, or whether the operation is read-only. 'Returns' is barely more informative than the title.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the endpoint and request scope appear early. It is efficient but leaves out substantial context, so it is concise rather than fully adequate.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to cover more ground for a tool with four parameters and a nested filters object. It omits return shape, required/optional behavior, filter semantics, and the relationship to the interim/final sibling endpoints, leaving an agent under-equipped.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at 'date range' and 'filtered cards' without mapping these to from/to, card, or filters. The filters object is entirely unexplained, and no parameter details or formats are given.

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 identifies a clear verb ('Returns'), a resource ('balances from /statements/balance'), and a scope ('date range or filtered cards'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_interim_balances and get_final_balances, so it stops short of fully differentiating.

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 phrase 'for a date range or filtered cards' implies the kind of request this tool serves. It gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_balances over get_interim_balances or get_final_balances, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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