evm_get_erc1155_balance

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not mention return format, default chainId behavior, or edge cases, leaving the agent without additional context about the operation's outcome.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's function without any filler or redundancy.

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 the description covers the core purpose, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify the return value (e.g., string vs number). It also doesn't mention the default behavior of chainId, despite that being in the schema. Overall adequate but with gaps.

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?

The input schema fully describes all four parameters (chainId, tokenId, ownerAddress, tokenAddress), and the description does not add extra meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'ERC-1155 token balance' with required parameters 'owner and token ID', clearly distinguishing it from generic balance tools like evm_get_balance and evm_get_token_balance.

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 ERC-1155 tokens but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like evm_get_token_balance or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It relies on the tool name and description to convey context.

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