Binance Smart Chain: bscGetBalances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining what is returned: native BNB plus all detected BEP-20 balances with fields like contract address and USD value where pricing is available. This is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond the 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs details without redundancy. Every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is fully adequate. It explains the return contents and limitations (USD value only where pricing available), making it complete for a simple balance lookup tool.

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 no parameters, and the rule sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description still contributes by clarifying that the tool uses the user's wallet context, which is helpful.

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 the user's wallet holdings on BNB Smart Chain (chain ID 56), specifying native BNB and BEP-20 tokens with contract address, symbol, decimals, and USD value. This distinguishes it from sibling getBalances tools for other chains.

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 makes the context clear by naming BNB Smart Chain and chain ID 56, implying it should be used for BSC holdings rather than other chains. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guideline quality.

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