get_wallet_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Read" implies a non-mutating operation, and "connected wallet" hints at a prerequisite, but there is no statement about permissions, rate limits, failure modes, or what the response contains.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Sized appropriately for a simple read tool.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least resolve the optional-parameter default and sketch the return value. As written, the agent can guess intent but not the exact semantics.

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 single parameter (token_address) is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It partially does by implying the argument selects between ETH and ERC-20, but never states the behavior when the optional parameter is omitted, leaving the default ambiguous.

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?

Specific verb ("Read") plus resource (balance) and scope (ETH or ERC-20, connected wallet). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_connected_wallet or get_wallet_activity, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite many sibling read tools (get_connected_wallet, search_o1_tokens) the agent must choose between. The only implicit cue is "connected wallet," which hints a connection is required but is not framed as a condition.

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