zunivo_spend_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool displays budget information (daily cap, spent, remaining, per-call ceiling), implicitly indicating a read-only operation. It does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, but for a status-check tool the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists the key data points. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 has no input parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return value by specifying the four main fields (daily cap, spent so far, remaining, per-call ceiling). It is contextually complete for an agent wanting to understand what this status tool provides.

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, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource: 'today's spending budget for the agent wallet'. It lists the exact information provided (daily cap, spent so far, remaining, per-call ceiling), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like paid_fetch or check_order.

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 a clear use case: checking the current budget status of the agent wallet. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this when budgeting or pre-checking spend, but it lacks explicit guidance.

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