get_other_balances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose the return structure, authentication needs, or what specific instruments are included under 'other,' leaving some behavioral ambiguity for such a simple tool.

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 of seven words with no filler. It front-loads the action and the scope, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 must define both scope and expected return. It does state that the tool returns 'balances,' but it leaves 'other' undefined and does not specify whether the response is a list, map, or aggregate. Sibling names help partially, but the lack of examples of 'other instruments' creates ambiguity.

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 zero properties, so there are no parameter names or types to describe. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource: 'other financial instruments and investment balances.' This indicates the tool is for balances outside the dedicated cash/equity/mutual fund/bond balance tools. However, the word 'other' is relative and relies on sibling names for full differentiation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the word 'other' implies it is a catch-all for balances not covered by sibling tools like get_equity_balances or get_cash_balances. This is implied usage guidance, not an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use recommendation.

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