Get final balances

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned and does not address filtering behavior, date handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response shape. The brief endpoint reference adds slight clarity but is insufficient.

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 sentence that directly states the core behavior and endpoint. It is concise and front-loaded with the most important information. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context, keeping it from a higher score.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the parameters, date format requirements, filter structure, or what the returned balances look like. The description is minimal enough that an agent would likely need to inspect the API or call the generic privat24_business_call_api 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description offers no explanation for the three parameters: card, date, and filters. An agent cannot determine what values are expected or how filters affect results. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 tool returns end-of-day balances from the /statements/final/balance endpoint. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate them, but 'end-of-day' helps distinguish it from interim balance tools.

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 like privat24_business_get_interim_balances or privat24_business_get_balances. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the word 'final'.

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