provider_earnings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('View'), specifies authentication requirements ('Requires API key (provider account)'), and describes the data structure (shows settled, held, and pending amounts). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time vs cached. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this provides basic but incomplete behavioral context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second specifies the data breakdown, and the third provides critical authentication context. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and authentication requirements. However, for a financial data tool, it could benefit from mentioning data freshness, whether amounts are in a specific currency, or what format the breakdown is presented in. The description is complete enough to understand the tool's purpose but leaves some contextual questions unanswered.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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's purpose: 'View your provider earnings breakdown on the402.ai' with specific resource (provider earnings) and scope (breakdown of settled, held, pending amounts). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_balance' or 'balance_history' by focusing specifically on provider earnings rather than general balance or transaction history. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these specific 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 clear context for when to use this tool: when needing to view provider earnings breakdown. It specifies the requirement of 'API key (provider account)' which indicates prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the context implies this is for provider earnings specifically.

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