get_address_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds in disclosing implementation details (Satoshi API primary with mempool.space fallback) and return value structure (total received/sent, current balance, timestamps). It does not mention rate limits or error behaviors, but covers data source transparency well.

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 efficiently structured with clear information hierarchy: purpose statement, implementation details, return value summary, and parameter specification. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately summarizes return values without over-specifying. It adequately covers the single parameter despite zero schema documentation and explains the dual-API implementation strategy, making it complete for this complexity level.

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 0% (no description field in schema), but the Args section fully compensates by explaining that the address parameter accepts 'Bitcoin address (any format: legacy, P2SH, bech32, bech32m)', providing crucial format guidance absent from the structured schema.

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 opens with specific verbs ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (Bitcoin address) and specific data retrieved (total balance, transaction count, first/last seen times). It distinguishes from siblings like get_address_history and get_address_utxos by emphasizing summary statistics rather than detailed records or UTXO lists.

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 through specifying what data is returned (summary statistics vs. full history), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_address_history or get_address_utxos. No 'when-not' or explicit alternatives are named.

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