get_balances

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, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no rate limits, no statement about whether zero balances or native tokens are included, and no return format. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'Get' is conveyed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, yet it omits what the response contains (list shape, zero-balance handling) and how errors/permissions behave. Adequate as a minimum-viable read tool but leaves clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents walletAddress, chain, and the optional tokenAddress filter. The description adds no format or syntax detail (e.g., chain identifier format, address normalization) beyond restating the two required parameters.

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 (Get) and resource (token balances) scoped to a wallet and chain. An agent can distinguish it from get_usdc_balance and get_portfolio, though the description never names those siblings or clarifies the boundary (e.g., does it include USDC?).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives in a very crowded read-tool family (get_usdc_balance, get_account_state, get_portfolio, get_wallet_info). The agent must infer routing purely from the name.

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