ghl_marketplace_has_funds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot carry: Private Integration Tokens are rejected outright and a specific OAuth scope is required, which would otherwise cause predictable auth failures. It does not describe the shape of the returned funds verdict.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in one line, followed by endpoint, auth, and scope facts in short labeled lines — no filler. Slightly dense as a metadata block (the Version header and source path are developer-facing rather than agent-facing), which keeps it off a 5.

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-param read with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the auth and scope constraints that determine whether the call succeeds. With no output schema present, it should ideally state what the check returns (a boolean/insufficient-funds flag), which is the one remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters (schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a zero-param tool is 4, and no parameter text is needed here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check whether the account has sufficient funds, backed by the concrete endpoint GET /marketplace/billing/charges/has-funds. It is distinguishable from sibling charge tools such as ghl_marketplace_get_charges or ghl_marketplace_charge by its predicate rather than by any explicit sibling comparison.

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 (a pre-charge balance check) is only implied; no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given. It does supply real prerequisites — the call requires a Sub-Account (location) token, must be an OAuth access token, and needs the charges.readonly scope — which is genuinely useful gating information.

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