get_account_balance

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the misleading field names (`gain_euro` is open P&L, `open_profit_loss` is cost basis), verification by reconciliation, and a warning not to quote `open_profit_loss` as a gain. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by necessary caveats and a usage pointer. Every sentence contributes value—no fluff or repetition of structured fields.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the description fully covers the tool's context: what it returns (liquidity, equity, two problematic fields), important data quirks, and when to choose an alternative. The presence of an output schema (per context signals) means return format details are already structured, so additional explanation is unnecessary.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter descriptions needed in the text, and the input schema correctly shows no properties. The description effectively handles parameter semantics by omission.

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 begins with 'Get raw account figures from dAPI INFOACCOUNT', which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and specific data items. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_portfolio_overview by stating which tool to prefer for portfolio value/performance, making it unambiguous among siblings.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'For anything about portfolio value or performance prefer get_portfolio_overview... use this tool for liquidity, equity, the account code, or when the user wants the raw line.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions with a named alternative.

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