get_token_balance

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

The description discloses that the returned value is in base units and implies the need for conversion, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the openWorldHint annotation. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, return type, or behavior with non-ERC20 tokens.

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 very concise with only two short sentences. The first sentence is clear and direct. The second sentence, while adding a useful note, is ambiguous (who performs the conversion?) and could be phrased more precisely, preventing a perfect score.

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 simple, well-schema'd getter tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to differentiate from the nearly identical sibling evm_get_token_balance and does not explain the return type (e.g., string vs number) beyond units, leaving the caller to infer these details.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (wallet, chainId, tokenAddress), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the action ('Get the balance') and the resource (ERC20 token) with the unit (base units). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling 'evm_get_token_balance', which appears to serve the same purpose.

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 instruction 'Convert to decimal units before returning' implies a post-processing step for the caller, providing some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling balance tools, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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