get_cash_balances

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

No annotations are available, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get detailed cash balances' without clarifying what 'detailed' means, whether data is real-time or cached, or any access restrictions. This is insufficient for a read operation.

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, concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the key action and result, earning no waste.

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-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks details about the output structure or any limits. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally expand on what 'detailed' includes, such as currency breakdowns or account-level data.

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 no parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description provides context that the tool operates 'across all securities companies', which aligns with the absence of parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves cash balances across all securities companies. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed cash balances'), and the context of sibling tools like 'get_equity_balances' and 'get_bond_balances' differentiates it by asset type.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While sibling names imply specialization by asset type, the description does not explicitly state when to use 'get_cash_balances' instead of other balance tools.

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