Get X-Chain balance

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds modest value by naming the underlying API call (avm.getBalance) and the multi-asset capability, but nothing further about behavior (e.g., balance format, zero-balance handling).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core purpose is stated up front and the underlying API reference is appended compactly; nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 simple read-only balance tool with full parameter schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly adequate. The main missing element is usage routing to sibling balance tools (avax_get_balance, avax_pchain_get_balance), which matters given the sibling set.

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%: all three parameters (address, network, asset_id) are documented with descriptions. The description echoes the asset flexibility (AVAX or any asset) that maps to asset_id but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get X-Chain balance for an X-addr') and clarifies the asset scope ('AVAX or any asset'). The X-Chain qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from avax_get_balance and avax_pchain_get_balance, though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus the generic avax_get_balance or the P-chain variant avax_pchain_get_balance. No exclusions or prerequisites are given; selection context is only implicit via the X-Chain qualifier in the name and title.

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