get_my_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful non-schema trait: the tool reads from a configured wallet and requires the PRIVATE_KEY env var, which implies credential-dependent behavior. It says nothing about read-only semantics, which chain/network is queried, or failure behavior when the key is absent.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite appended as a compact parenthetical. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally indicate the return shape (balance units, token vs. native currency) and default-network behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response format for a zero-arg tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The parenthetical env requirement is context rather than a parameter, and it is appropriately placed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('balance of configured wallet'), and the qualifier 'configured wallet' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_wallet_balance. It does not explicitly name that sibling or clarify how they differ, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the nearby get_wallet_balance, nor any stated preconditions beyond the parenthetical env requirement. The agent must infer the distinction (configured/default wallet vs. an addressed wallet) from the qualifier alone.

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