get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no state is modified or mention any permissions or side effects. It is adequate but minimal for a simple 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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or redundant information.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficient to understand its function. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The only gap is a lack of explicit usage guidance, but this is a minor omission for a straightforward balance checker.

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, so the schema already provides full coverage. The description correctly scopes the balance to 'available for trading,' adding semantic meaning beyond the empty schema. This aligns with the baseline for no 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('USDC balance available for trading'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_portfolio by focusing specifically on the USDC trading balance.

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 this tool (to check available trading balance) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on choosing this over get_portfolio or get_pnl_summary, but the context is reasonably clear.

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