get_ft_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but never states read-only safety, what happens for accounts with zero balance or unknown contracts, or whether the result is a raw amount or a formatted value.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 read tool with fully documented params, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the unstated return representation (raw integer vs decimal-adjusted), which matters since no output schema exists, but this is a minor omission.

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% and includes concrete contract ID examples ('wrap.near', 'usdt.tether-token.near'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('fungible token (FT/NEP-141) balance'), and scope ('for an account on a specific token contract'). The FT/NEP-141 qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling get_account_balance (native NEAR), though it never names that alternative. Clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_account_balance or get_ft_metadata, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the use case from the tool name and description alone.

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