kraken_get_account_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or any side effects. For a simple balance getter, this is adequate but lacks depth—e.g., no note that it returns all assets including zero balances or that it is safe to call.

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, directly front-loaded with the action ('Get') and the core resource. It contains no filler, redundancy, or excessive detail. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 the simplicity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is almost complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (account balance for all assets) and needs no return format explanation. The only minor gap is the lack of distinction from kraken_get_extended_balance, but the overall completeness is high for this tool's complexity.

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, and the schema already reflects that (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. There is nothing extra needed for parameters, and the description's scope statement ('all assets') is a useful semantic context.

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's function: 'Get the current account balance for all assets on Kraken exchange.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('account balance'), and scope ('all assets'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kraken_get_extended_balance. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kraken_get_extended_balance or other balance-related tools. There is no mention of when this tool is preferred or excluded. The context 'current account balance' implies basic usage, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative references are given.

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