base: baseGetBalances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by warning about the difference between 'balance' and 'humanReadableBalance', which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a critical note. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no parameters or output schema. The description covers purpose and a key usage detail. While it could mention the structure of the return (e.g., list of token balances), the critical hint partially compensates. For a simple read-only balance tool, it is largely complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter info; baseline 4 applies for no parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Get wallet balances on Base,' specifying both the action (get balances) and the resource (wallet on Base blockchain). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bscGetBalances or ethGetBalances.

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 includes a critical note about using 'balance' for trades instead of 'humanReadableBalance', providing direct usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the blockchain name is implicit.

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