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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only balance lookup, but does not disclose whether it hits the chain live, what happens on an invalid/unknown address, or latency/rate-limit behavior. It does at least enumerate the valid network values, adding real behavioral context.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by compact args documentation. Little waste, though the leading label repeats the tool name and the Args block is somewhat duplicative of the schema.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description could say more about the return value (balance units, formatting) and error behavior. For a simple two-parameter read tool it is adequate but leaves those gaps open.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema has no enums, so the description must compensate. It does: it lists the three allowed 'red' values (base, ethereum, solana) that the schema omits, and defines 'direccion' as the account address on that network.

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+resource: retrieves the native balance of an account, and clarifies which asset per chain (ETH on Base/Ethereum, SOL on Solana). The word 'nativo' implicitly separates it from saldo_token, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied via the 'nativo' qualifier, which is the key distinction from the sibling saldo_token. It never states when to use this vs saldo_token, nor any prerequisites (e.g., valid address format).

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