get_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 states 'Get settlement balance' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, returns real-time or cached data, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational 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 'Get settlement balance' is extremely concise—just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it might be overly terse, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity, but it earns its place by stating the essential purpose without waste.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'settlement balance' entails (e.g., currency, time period, account scope) or what the return value looks like. For a tool with no structured context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate given the schema completeness. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 'Get settlement balance' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('settlement balance'), but it's somewhat vague about what specifically is being retrieved. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_transaction' that might also provide financial data, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'query_transaction' that might return similar financial information, there's no indication of when this specific balance retrieval is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other tools.

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