xpayr_get_merchant_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: this is a read-only aggregation (not per-transaction data), it covers only 'confirmed' settlements, and results are bucketed by currency and network. However, it says nothing about authentication scope (whether results are limited to the calling merchant) or what time window applies, which is especially important given the tool takes zero parameters.

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 dense sentence with the metrics front-loaded and no filler. The list of four metrics plus the grouping clause makes it slightly run-on but every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe the return shape; it lists the metrics and the grouping dimensions but not the nesting or field names. It also omits the time window covered and any merchant scoping, which are significant unknowns for a zero-parameter analytics 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 has no input parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; baseline applies. The description's mention of grouping by currency and network at least orients the agent to the shape of the output dimension.

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 names a specific verb ('Query') and enumerates the exact metrics returned: settlement volume, transaction counts, merchant received amounts, and platform fees, grouped by currency and network. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookups like xpayr_get_merchant_profile or xpayr_list_payment_sessions, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this aggregate view versus listing individual payment sessions or checking the merchant profile. The word 'confirmed' hints that pending or failed transactions are excluded, but this is left implicit rather than stated as a usage rule or exclusion.

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