Балансы кошелька

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output scope—accounts, currency balances, USDT, precision—but does not mention return format, pagination, auth expectations, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only.

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 compact sentence that conveys the resource, scope, and a relevant precision detail. There is no wasted or redundant wording.

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 read-only balance lookup with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the returned entities and scope. Additional details about the exact response structure would be helpful, but the invocation context is simple enough that the description is adequate.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the returned data covers, which is sufficient since no parameters need explanation.

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 identifies the resource: wallet accounts and balances by currency, including USDT and precision. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling balance/finance tools, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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: an agent should call this tool when it needs wallet balances. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related tools such as wata_wallet_operations or wata_finance_summary.

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