fomo_get_balances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says it gets token balances, with no mention of read-only guarantees, authentication needs, pagination, result limits, or whether the return is an array or summary. This is a significant gap for a bare get-tool.

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 short phrase, 'Token balances for a user', and is absolutely free of filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than ideal concision.

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 output schema, the description should give some sense of the expected return (e.g., a list of token holdings with balances), but it leaves that entirely implicit. The tool is simple (one param), but the lack of return type and id semantics means an agent would still be guessing about the actual response shape.

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 only parameter 'id' is a bare string with 0% schema coverage. The description adds that it refers to 'a user', which clarifies the id's purpose but it does not specify whether this is an internal database ID, handle, or address, nor give any format constraints. It adds value but not enough to fully compensate for the schema silence.

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 states the tool returns 'token balances for a user', specifying a clear resource and target. It is distinct from sibling tools like fomo_get_user_swaps or fomo_get_pnl_equity_series, but it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name's 'get' for action.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many related siblings, such as fomo_get_user_swaps, fomo_get_user_rank, or fomo_get_pnl_equity_series. The description provides no exclusions or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice.

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