get_cash_balances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'detailed' hints at comprehensive output, but it does not explicitly disclose non-mutating behavior, nor does it mention any requirements, rate limits, or exact output contents. The description adds contextual value with the RDN terminology but lacks detailed behavioral disclosure.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It includes the helpful local term 'Rekening Dana Nasabah (RDN)' without wasted words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must explain return behavior. It states 'detailed cash balances' but does not specify the structure, aggregation level, or whether all accounts are included. While the tool is simple, the absence of output details leaves room for ambiguity about what 'detailed' entails, making the description minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the schema is complete. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not attempt to describe parameters, as there are none, and adds no unnecessary syntax information.

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 gets detailed cash balances (Rekening Dana Nasabah / RDN) across securities accounts, using a specific verb 'Get' and a well-defined resource. The mention of 'cash balances' and the term 'RDN' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_equity_balances and get_bond_balances.

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 implies usage for fetching cash balances, and the sibling tool names suggest when to use this over alternatives, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to use this vs. another tool. The scope 'across securities accounts' provides context but no direct comparison to get_portfolio_summary or other asset-specific balance tools.

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