spraay_compute_futures_balance

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the cost per call, which is behavioral information not in annotations. It also confirms read-only nature. There is no contradiction or missing critical behavioral context.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and cost but lacks clarity on what the 'id' parameter refers to. The schema description is uninformative, and the description does not compensate, leaving ambiguity about the input's meaning.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter guidance ('Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments'), but does not explain what the 'id' parameter represents or provide meaningful semantics beyond the schema's vague 'id parameter' description.

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 action ('Check remaining compute credit balance, tier, discount, and usage stats'), using specific verbs and listing all relevant resources. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like spraay_compute_futures_deposit, spraay_compute_futures_history, etc., by specifying the exact information returned.

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 important usage context: it costs $0.001 USDC per call and is read-only. It also instructs to pass fields as typed arguments. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives like spraay_compute_futures_history.

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