Consultar saldos

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuine behavioral constraint (64-day maximum range) and the scope of returned balances (three account types), which is real, non-obvious context. It stops short of richer disclosure like read-only nature or response shape, keeping it out of the top band.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and balance types, then the range limit and the alternative. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 three-parameter, non-mutating query with no output schema, the definition covers the essential constraints and routing guidance. The only gap is the absence of return-shape hints, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 desde, hasta and moneda are already documented with format and enum. The description only adds the 64-day limit that binds the date parameters, which is mild value beyond the schema and consistent with the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific resource (current balances across all accounts) and even enumerates the three balance types (contable, operativo, proyectado). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling saldos_historicos, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (saldos_historicos) together with the exact condition that selects it: date ranges longer than 64 days. The optional range for this tool is stated with its bound, leaving nothing to inference.

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