tokportal_get_credit_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, which fully convey the safe, read-only nature. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them. A 4 is appropriate because annotations carry the burden effectively.

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 at two words, which is acceptable for a simple, parameterless tool. It is front-loaded but borders on being underspecified relative to the number of sibling tools.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it could briefly mention the return value (e.g., currency, format) to improve completeness, especially given the large sibling set where credit-related tools exist.

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 zero parameters, so the description has nothing to clarify beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct, as no additional parameter information is 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?

The description 'Get credit balance' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (credit balance), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this from similar getters like tokportal_get_credit_costs, leaving ambiguity about the specific data returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as distinguishing it from tokportal_get_credit_costs or tokportal_list_credit_transactions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.

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