get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses defaults (SUI) and the optional historical checkpoint feature, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or return format. For a non-mutating get operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 that effectively convey purpose, default, and optional parameter. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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?

The tool is simple and all parameters are fully described in the schema. The description covers default behavior and historical queries, but it does not mention the return value or format. Given the absence of an output schema, adding return detail would improve completeness, but current coverage is solid for a straightforward balance query.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including defaults for coin_type and at_checkpoint. The description adds no new parameter details beyond what is already in the schema; it only mentions defaults and the optional historical checkpoint, which are already documented.

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 states the tool retrieves the balance of a specific coin type for a Sui address, with a default to SUI and optional historical checkpoint querying. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet_overview or list_owned_objects.

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 usage for querying coin balances but does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_wallet_overview or get_object. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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