get_sol_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the result includes both lamports and SOL, which is useful. However, it does not mention how the commitment parameter affects the result, potential errors, or network behavior. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return format. No wasted words.

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, but the absence of output schema and annotations increases the description's responsibility. It covers purpose and return units, but omits the commitment parameter's role and potential edge cases. The description is adequate for a basic balance check but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly covers the 'address' parameter by mentioning 'wallet address.' The 'commitment' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the schema and description. Since half of the parameters are unexplained, the description fails to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 function: 'Get the SOL balance (in lamports and SOL) for a wallet address.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('SOL balance'), and specifies the scope ('wallet address'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_token_accounts_by_owner or get_token_supply.

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 when to use the tool (for checking SOL balance of a specific wallet) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't mention that it is for SOL only, not SPL tokens, or when another tool might be more appropriate. Context is clear but guidance is minimal.

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