loyalteez_get_user_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: balances are stored on-chain, and it provides a concrete fallback (resolve wallet, query the LTZ contract at a specific address via balanceOf() on Soneium Mainnet, Chain ID 1868). It does not address auth requirements or rate limits, but the fallback and on-chain disclosure go well beyond a bare restatement.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage context and a clearly delimited implementation note. The doc/contract cross-references and numbered fallback are somewhat verbose but each item is actionable rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value burden—it names both the balance and recent transaction history, and the historyLimit/includeHistory params are covered by the schema. Combined with the on-chain fallback, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100%, so brandId, userEmail, historyLimit, and includeHistory are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a user's current LTZ balance and recent transaction history'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like loyalteez_get_user_stats or loyalteez_get_user_achievements, but the balance-centric scope is clear.

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?

'Use this to display balance in your app or verify rewards were distributed' gives concrete use cases, and the implementation note routes to loyalteez_resolve_user as a fallback path. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or comparing against an alternative balance/rewards sibling, so it is strong context without exclusions.

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