check_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates read-only behavior via 'Return' and 'Reads', and adds reliability context by mentioning the Hedera Mirror Node REST API. It does not list side effects, but none are expected for a balance query.

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 two concise sentences that immediately state the output and the data source. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool, the description covers what is returned (balances and link) and how it is fetched (Mirror Node API). It lacks a detailed output structure, but given the low complexity, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no ambiguities. The description confirms the account is pre-configured ('the configured Hedera account'), effectively eliminating any need for parameter explanation. A baseline of 4 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 returns HBAR and USDC balances for the configured Hedera account plus a HashScan link. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like transfer_hbar and transfer_usdc which are clearly write operations.

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 as a read-only balance check, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling names suggest transfers, so the use case is inferable but not directly guided.

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