Get wallet balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read. The description adds the behavioral nuance that passing client_id triggers automatic resolution of the default account, whereas passing account_id targets a specific account. This is useful beyond the structured annotations, though it does not describe return values or error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a compact parameter explanation. No redundant words or 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 simple read-only balance check, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter selection, and annotations confirm safety. It lacks any mention of the response format or what happens if neither identifier is provided, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, this is a minor gap. The absence of an output schema slightly increases the need for return-value disclosure, but the description remains adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with basic UUID descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between client_id and account_id: they are alternatives, and client_id uses a default account. This helps the agent choose the correct parameter for the context, exceeding the schema's bare definitions.

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 a client's wallet/credit balance, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_wallet_transactions by focusing on the current balance, not transaction history. The additional parameter guidance reinforces the purpose.

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 instructs to pass either client_id or account_id, explaining that client_id resolves to the default account automatically. This provides clear context for parameter selection, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as list_wallet_transactions or refund_from_wallet. Since the tool's purpose is obvious from context, the guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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