strale_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (EUR cents and EUR) and authentication requirement. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, safe operation or contrast its non-destructive nature against mutation siblings like strale_transaction.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence covers functionality and return format; the second covers authentication requirements. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter 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?

For a simple balance retrieval tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the currency formats returned and auth needs. It could be improved by explicitly stating the read-only nature given the lack of annotations and presence of mutation siblings.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage (trivially). Per scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on return value semantics and auth requirements.

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 uses a specific verb (Returns) with the exact resource (Strale wallet balance) and specifies the dual return format (EUR cents and EUR). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like strale_execute and strale_transaction which imply state modification, while this tool clearly retrieves data.

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 states the prerequisite 'Requires an API key,' providing necessary auth context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this to check funds before calling strale_execute') or when not to use it.

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