get_exchange_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It does indicate the tool is a read operation (via 'Get') and mentions the configured wallet dependency. However, it doesn't explicitly disclose authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether any side effects occur, though the nature of a balance query makes this less critical.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value—especially the clarification separating exchange balance from wallet balance. No redundant 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains the difference from wallet balance and the configuration dependency. It doesn't detail the return format, but for a balance lookup this is not a major gap; still, a brief mention of the response could improve completeness.

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 schema already fully describes the single optional parameter with 100% coverage, including the fallback to WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY. The description repeats this information but adds no new parameter-specific semantics; therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the exchange (vault) balance for a configured wallet. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'exchange balance', and explicitly distinguishes this from wallet balance, which separates it from sibling tools like get_wallet_balances.

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 clear context that this tool targets exchange balance, not wallet balance, and notes that it uses the wallet address from WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use', the distinction is strong enough to guide selection.

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