get_rune_balances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return payload shape (rune name, symbol, balance). However, it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset params, nor about auth needs or result limits, so behavioral coverage is partial for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the return contents are appended efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and all three params are fully documented in the schema. It is close to complete for a simple read tool, with only pagination semantics left implicit.

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%, with limit, offset, and address all documented including bounds and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond identifying that address is a Bitcoin address, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 Rune token balances for a Bitcoin address') and lists what is returned (rune name, symbol, balance). The resource is precise enough to separate it from the near-twin get_brc20_balances, but it never explicitly names siblings like get_rune_holders or get_rune_info, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding between this and get_rune_holders, get_tx_runes, or get_brc20_balances; usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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