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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what account is accessed, or whether authentication is required. It does hint at the response fields, but otherwise offers minimal 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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded: 'Get account balance'. Every part of the sentence carries meaning, either identifying the operation or hinting at the returned values. This is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states the resource and suggests the returned fields. It does not explicitly mention that the balance belongs to the current authenticated account or define the format of 'balance', but the tool's simplicity makes these gaps minor. A richer description could clarify the response structure, but none is strictly necessary for basic invocation.

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 discriminative schema confirms no inputs are required, so parameter-level description is unnecessary. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The parenthetical likely describes output fields, not inputs, and any ambiguity is mitigated by the empty schema.

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 names the operation ('Get') and the resource ('account balance'), with a parenthetical hint about the response shape: 'account_code, balance'. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools, which concern messages, contacts, DIDs, and SMS rather than account balance. However, the parenthetical is not explicitly labeled as the return format, leaving slight ambiguity about whether account_code is an input or an output.

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 intended usage is implied: call this tool when you need the account balance. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. Since no sibling tool covers balances, the absence of explicit routing is not severely harmful, but it is still left to inference.

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