get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only clarifies that the balance is in paper-points, not cash. It does not state that the operation is read-only, requires no side effects, or mention any authentication or rate-limit considerations. No contradictions, but the behavior is essentially undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the parenthetical clarification adds value without extra length. Appropriate size for a simple tool.

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 tool with a required parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what agent_id should be set to, what the response shape is, or how this fits among the many sibling tools (e.g., get_my_bets, place_bet). An agent would likely need external context to use it correctly.

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 description provides zero explanation of the required agent_id parameter, and the schema description coverage is 0%. Since the description is the only source of parameter semantics, leaving agent_id unexplained forces the agent to guess that it identifies the user. This is a critical gap.

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 specifies 'paper-points balance' and explicitly contrasts with 'cash', making the resource unambiguous. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', but the intent to return the balance is evident. There is no direct sibling that serves the same purpose, so differentiation is not an issue.

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 phrase 'Your paper-points balance' implies the tool is used when you want to view your balance, but it does not state when to use this over alternatives like get_my_bets or get_track_record. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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