Get Wallet Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuine behavioral trait beyond them: zero-balance tokens are filtered out, which shapes what the agent should expect in the response. It does not state the prerequisite that a wallet must be connected/active, which is only implied.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence carries a non-redundant filtering caveat. No filler wording.

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 does the necessary work of sketching the return set (native plus all ERC-20) and excluding zero balances. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; the only shortfall is not stating what happens when no wallet is connected or when the chain is unsupported.

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 100% and the single 'chain' parameter is fully described with an enum and a default of 'base'. The description only echoes 'on a specific chain' and adds no enumeration, default, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: fetches native and ERC-20 token balances for the active wallet on a named chain. An agent can tell it is a per-chain balance read, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_portfolio' or 'list_tokens', which plausibly overlap.

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 scope phrase 'for the active wallet on a specific chain' implies the situation to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no naming of alternatives such as get_portfolio for aggregate views. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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