get_token_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether the balance is returned in raw units, whether the address needs to be base58, or how network defaults are handled. With strong annotations, a score of 3 reflects that the description adds minimal value beyond the structured metadata.

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, clear sentence of eight words. It is perfectly concise, with no wasted words or redundant information, and it is easy to parse at a glance.

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, read-only token balance tool with strong annotations and a fully self-described schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention return value format (e.g., raw integer vs. decimal-adjusted) or default network behavior beyond the schema. Despite this, the tool's low complexity means the lack of an output schema is less critical, so a score of 4 is given.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for address, network, and tokenAddress. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 'Get the TRC20 token balance for an address' clearly states the action (get), the resource (TRC20 token balance), and the target (an address). The inclusion of 'TRC20' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance (likely native TRX) and get_account_balance. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 obtaining a single TRC20 token balance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_trc20_balances (which returns multiple balances) or get_balance (likely for TRX). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, making the guidance merely implicit rather than explicit.

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