rustchain_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no authentication requirements, no indication of whether a miner_id is resolved live or cached, no error behavior for a malformed or nonexistent address, and no note on the returned value's units. The only added behavior is that both an address and a miner_id are valid inputs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the verb, resource, and accepted identifier types. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits the return shape (numeric RTC amount and any decimals/units) and how it relates to the sibling ledger tool that may also expose balance data.

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 the parameter is already fully documented in the schema, and the description merely restates the same 'address or miner_id' duality without adding format, resolution, or fallback semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the RTC balance') plus the accepted subject ('wallet address or miner_id'), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling rustchain_ledger, which could plausibly also report balances, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the accepted identifiers, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferred over rustchain_ledger or rustchain_miners, and no note about what to do if the address is unknown.

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