Get balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining what transfers_enabled means and which downstream operation depends on it, which is behavioural context the annotations cannot convey.

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 with no filler. The return shape comes first and the operational relevance of transfers_enabled follows, which is the right front-loading for a zero-argument read tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does enough: entry-per-asset-and-network plus the transfers_enabled flag and its meaning. Other fields in each entry are left unenumerated, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level claims are made or needed.

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?

Names a specific resource (the organisation's stablecoin balance) and describes the return shape as one entry per asset and network held, which is more than a restatement of the title. The 'organisation's' scoping implicitly separates it from the sibling get_balance_wallet, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context: the transfers_enabled flag matters when calling create_transfer with fundingSource 'prefund_balance', so an agent knows to read this before setting up a prefunded transfer. It stops short of explicit exclusions against alternatives such as get_balance_wallet or list_balance_activity.

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