stock_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports both raw and adjusted balances, and that they differ after corporate actions. This is good transparency for a read operation, though it could mention that it is read-only and has no side effects.

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 two sentences long, no redundant words, and the key distinction (raw vs adjusted) is front-loaded. The warning about balanceOf is concise yet informative.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (raw vs adjusted balances). However, it does not specify the return format or provide examples, which would help completeness. The warning adds value but some details are 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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. While 'token' and 'address' are somewhat self-explanatory from the context, the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., expected format, examples) beyond the parameter names.

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 balance of a stock token in both raw and multiplier-adjusted forms, differentiating it from standard balanceOf calls. It explicitly addresses the common integration bug, making the purpose distinct from siblings.

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 provides explicit guidance: use this tool for stock tokens, and prefer the adjusted figure. It contrasts with standard balanceOf (a common bug), effectively telling the agent when to use this tool over alternatives like get_token_balance.

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