Consultar saldo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – 'Sin costo' – telling the agent the call is free, but it says nothing about auth requirements or the response format. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate-but-thin.

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?

Two very short fragments, front-loaded with the returned resource and closing with the cost note – no waste at all. It reads as a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly limits it, but nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what is returned and confirms it is free, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world nature. Only the lack of any linkage to the surrounding verification workflow keeps it from being fully complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline for parameterless tools this scores 4. No parameter-level information is missing.

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 identifies the resource being returned (tokens available in the Verificar CURP account), which, combined with the name consultar_saldo, makes the operation clear. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings like consultar_verificacion or verificar_curp_renapo, so an agent gets no help distinguishing this balance check from the other verification tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated precondition (e.g. before consuming tokens, or before running verificar_curp_renapo), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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