get_token_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says it returns a balance, but fails to mention it is a read-only operation, the network context, or any authentication needs. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that states the core functionality upfront, with no wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits important details: the format of the returned balance (e.g., wei as a string), error behavior on invalid input, and prerequisites like token contract existence. The lack of output schema increases the need for such information, making the description incomplete.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters (token has a description, address does not). The description adds context for 'token' by mentioning 'known symbol' and an example (USDG), but adds nothing for 'address'. The added value is partial but not comprehensive.

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 retrieves an ERC-20 balance for an address, using a known symbol or token address. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance (native balance) and list_token_holdings (all tokens).

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 implies the tool is for querying a single token balance by symbol or address, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like multi_token_balance or list_token_holdings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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