get_token_balances

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the plan restriction, which is useful, but fails to disclose read-only nature, return format, pagination behavior (despite a cursor parameter), or potential edge cases. The tool could be a read operation, but nothing in the description confirms that, leaving the agent uncertain about safety and side effects.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loads the core function. There is zero waste or redundancy. It earns its place by stating the action and the plan restriction.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return values, pagination (cursor), filtering (filterToken), or the includeNative option. The plan restriction is the only additional context. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (cursor, networkId, filterToken, includeNative, walletAddress) already has a description. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 states the tool's function: 'Get token balances for a wallet'. It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinguishable from siblings like get_token_info (which presumably retrieves token metadata) and get_tokens (which likely lists tokens). The plan restriction is an additional clarifying detail.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the plan restriction ('Codex Growth and Enterprise Plans only'), which is a conditional usage requirement, but does not explain scenarios, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_token_holders or filter_tokens. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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