midnight_get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read-only query (balance retrieval) but doesn't explicitly state no side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 fairly concise (8 lines) with bullet points and a note. It could be slightly tighter, but it's well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for a balance query. It covers what it returns and use cases. No missing critical information for typical usage.

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 50% (network parameter lacks a description). The main description adds no additional meaning to either parameter beyond what's in the schema. For a tool with 2 parameters, the description should compensate for the schema gap but fails to do so.

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 queries token balance for a Midnight Network address, specifying it returns tDUST balance and address information. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like midnight_transfer_tokens or midnight_get_transaction.

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 lists explicit use cases: checking wallet balances, verifying transaction results, and monitoring account funds. It also mentions the faucet for testnet. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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