account-balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements (though parameters suggest API keys are needed), rate limits, error conditions, or what specific balance information is returned. For a financial tool with authentication parameters, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with authentication parameters (apiKey, secret) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the balance information returns (e.g., structured data with currencies/amounts), whether it includes all account types, or any prerequisites for use. The combination of financial data retrieval with authentication requirements demands more contextual information.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('account balance from a crypto exchange'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get-funding-rates' or 'get-ticker' that also retrieve financial data from exchanges, missing an opportunity for differentiation.

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. With sibling tools like 'get-funding-rates' or 'get-ticker' that retrieve different types of exchange data, there's no indication of when account balance retrieval is appropriate versus other financial queries.

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