查看钱包

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that the tool reads both available and reserved balances, includes currency, and indicates whether funds are simulated test funds. It also reiterates the read-only nature by stating it does not top up or withdraw, without contradicting annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a clear exclusion. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context. It states what is read, mentions the simulated test fund aspect, and clarifies exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema fully documents the absence of arguments. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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 ('Read') and clearly specifies the resource: available/reserved wallet balances, currency, and simulated test fund status. It also explicitly states what it does not do (top up or withdraw), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely handle those operations.

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 provides clear context by stating what the tool reads and explicitly excludes top-up and withdrawal operations, giving an implicit when-not-to-use. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit conditions for when to prefer this tool over others, so it falls short of a 5.

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