Финансы по терминалам

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. It states what data is returned (balances and readiness status) but does not mention pagination behavior, date range defaults, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). It doesn't describe the response structure or any edge cases. Minimal transparency for a data retrieval tool.

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, short sentence that front-loads the key information. It is extremely concise with zero waste, achieving maximum efficiency for the information it conveys.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain the return value more thoroughly. It mentions 'balances and readiness status' but lacks details on the response format, what 'readiness' means, or how pagination works. However, the tool is simple with optional parameters, so the description is minimally acceptable but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (from, to, skipCount, maxResultCount) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters, but the schema already documents them adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: it returns terminal balances and readiness status for conversion/payout. It is specific about the resource and data type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling finance tools like wata_finance_summary or wata_terminal_get. The verb is implied (retrieve), but the subject is clear.

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. With many sibling finance tools (e.g., wata_finance_summary, wata_payouts_history, wata_converts_history), the description offers no exclusions or conditions for selection. The agent must infer the tool's niche from the title and sibling names.

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