pulse_balance

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: the tool is free, and it warns that paid calls will fail if the balance is zero, with an instruction to fund the wallet. This extra cost/funding behavior is useful and not redundant with the annotation.

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 and both earn their place. The first sentence states the core function and the second provides a critical operational warning. There is no fluff or repetition, and the information is front-loaded with the key point about being free and what it returns.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is fairly complete. It explains what data the tool returns (address and balance) and includes an important caveat about zero balances affecting paid calls. It does not detail the return format, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential context well.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. It adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate here.

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 that the tool provides the local wallet address and its USDC balance on Base. It is specific about the resource (wallet address and balance) and implicitly conveys a 'get' action, though it lacks an explicit verb. The tool name 'pulse_balance' and the content distinguish it from siblings like pulse_call and pulse_report.

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 clear usage context: it is free and should be used to check the balance before making paid calls, since a zero balance will cause failures. It instructs the user to provide the address for funding. While it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, the guidance is actionable and clear.

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