get_wallet_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (SOL balance and token positions) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'abfragen').

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then specifies what's returned, and finally details the parameter with an example. The German language doesn't affect conciseness scoring. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the parameter well, but doesn't describe the return format in detail (beyond 'SOL-Balance und alle Token-Positionen') or address potential limitations or error cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains the wallet_address parameter, specifies the required format (Base58), and gives a concrete example. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose: querying SOL and token balances for a Solana wallet. It specifies the verb ('abfragen' - query/retrieve) and resource (wallet balances), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_history' or 'get_token_info' which might also involve wallet data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_token_info' or 'get_transaction_history' that might serve related purposes, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for balance queries.

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