Get P-Chain balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by breaking down the balance into three categories, which informs the agent about the expected output structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key details without any fluff. Every phrase earns its place, and the example address is a practical addition.

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) and annotations covering safety, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, why it's needed, and hints at the return categories. It does not describe error handling or exact return format, but those are not essential for a read-only balance check.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds an example address format (P-fuji1...) and clarifies the address type, but does not significantly go beyond the schema. Baseline 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 resource (P-Chain balance), the verb (get), and specifies the three balance components (unlocked, locked stakeable, locked not stakeable). It also gives a concrete address example, making it easy to distinguish from X-Chain or other balance tools among the siblings.

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 a clear use case: 'Needed before creating subnets/chains or adding validators.' This gives context for when to call the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for X-Chain balance). Since the sibling set includes avax_xchain_get_balance, this is a minor gap.

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