get_balance

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

The description goes far beyond the minimal: it explains nullable fields and companion error fields, cautions that leverage is currently always null, and clarifies that funding_paid is a real zero rather than unknown. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and handles it exceptionally well.

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?

While the description is detailed, every sentence serves a purpose: scope, null semantics, format-specific caveats, and authentication. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates only where ambiguity would otherwise cause incorrect agent behavior.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's inputs, output areas, edge-case semantics, authentication requirement, and even how to interpret signs on funding_paid. A no-parameter tool like this is fully usable based on the description alone.

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, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds useful meaning about response-level field semantics, which exceeds the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 an authenticated account snapshot including collateral balance, equity, and positions, which is specific and unambiguous. The exact scope also differentiates this from sibling tools like get_positions or get_account_summary, even without naming them explicitly.

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?

It clearly communicates that this requires API credentials and is appropriate for getting a broad account snapshot rather than a focused detail like only positions. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer sibling tools, but its stated context is sufficiently clear.

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