Депозитный баланс

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('current balance') and clarifies a key behavioral nuance (separate from office wallet). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a safe, non-mutating call or mention any auth requirements, though these are reasonable inferences for a balance query.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding the crucial distinction from the wallet. Every sentence earns its place; there is zero redundancy.

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 balance query with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the balance is, how it's used, and how it differs from the wallet. It does not mention the currency of the balance, which could be a minor gap, but it is not essential for calling this tool.

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 takes 0 parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is unnecessary given the absence of parameters.

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 it returns the merchant's current deposit balance and specifies that this balance funds orders with payment=deposit. It also explicitly distinguishes it from the office wallet, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like wata_wallet_balances. However, it lacks a direct action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', though this is implied.

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 when to use it (when checking deposit balance for payment=deposit orders) and contrasts it with the office wallet, suggesting it's not for general wallet balances. But it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference required.

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