get_usdc_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that no authentication is required, which is meaningful for an agent orchestrating calls, but it omits whether the call is read-only by contract (implied by "Get"), what format the balance is returned in, or any rate limits.

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 with zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the auth note. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter read whose return value (a USDC balance) is self-evident and needs no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The only gap is absence of return-format detail, which is minor here.

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 the single parameter walletAddress is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, validation, or addressing details beyond what the schema already states, 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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (USDC balance), chain (HyperLiquid), and target (a wallet), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_balances or get_hl_clearinghouse_state, leaving the agent to infer that this is the USDC-specific variant.

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 auth required" gives a useful usage signal, implying it is a free read callable without credentials. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_balances (general balances) or get_hl_clearinghouse_state, and no stated prerequisites or alternatives.

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