binance_get_wallet_balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the SIGNED endpoint, IP weight 60 relative to the 12000/min budget, the one-row-per-wallet result shape with quote_asset valuation and activation status, markdown vs json output, and specific error code meanings (2015, 404). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 organized into clear, front-loaded sections: core purpose, endpoint/rate context, when to use, when not to use, returns, examples, and error handling. Every section adds distinct value and there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 read-only wallet aggregation tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: rate-limit implications, usage guidance, alternatives, return format, example parameter values, and error handling. The output schema and annotations cover the remaining structured aspects, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Despite the context signal indicating 0% schema description coverage, the description reinforces parameter meaning: it explains quote_asset as the currency each wallet total is valued in, gives concrete examples ({}, {'quote_asset': 'USDT'}), and clarifies response_format behavior (markdown vs raw JSON). The input schema itself also contains descriptions, so the description adds value on top rather than carrying the full burden alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Show one total per wallet') and lists the wallet types covered (Spot, Funding, Margin, Futures, Earn). It names the exact endpoint and differentiates itself from sibling tools in the 'When NOT to Use' section, so an agent can clearly tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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 includes dedicated 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections with concrete conditions (e.g., first call for 'where is my money', before a transfer) and explicitly names alternatives like binance_get_user_assets, binance_get_funding_wallet, and binance_get_account_snapshot. It also provides rate-limit context for why it shouldn't be polled.

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