get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds useful context about the signed normal balance and that as_of recomputes from the journal, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe error behavior if the account does not exist.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and adds the sign convention and as_of explanation without any wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core semantics and point-in-time behavior. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., numeric value) or error cases, which would be more important given no output schema and no annotations.

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 as_of parameter is well-described in both the schema and description, but the required account parameter has no schema description and the description only says 'one account' without clarifying whether it expects an account name, ID, or other identifier. This leaves a significant gap for the required parameter.

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 gets the current signed normal balance of a single account, and specifies the sign convention for different account types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trial_balance (which likely provides aggregate balances) and list_accounts.

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 implies usage for querying a single account balance and mentions using as_of for historical balances, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear but no exclusions are given.

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