usdc_get_balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world behavior are covered. The description adds aggregation scope (all supported chains and cross-chain total) but does not disclose auth/session requirements, rate limits, or the precise return structure.

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 compact sentence with no filler that front-loads the unified multi-chain scope. It could be slightly clearer with an explicit verb, but it is appropriately sized.

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 readOnly/openWorld annotations, fully documented parameters, and no output schema, the description gives enough about what is returned: USDC, native gas, and cross-chain total. It stops short of specifying data format or handling of zero-balance chains, so it is strong but not complete.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource (USDC and native gas balances) and scope (every supported chain plus a cross-chain total), making it distinguishable from single-chain balance tools. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name sibling alternatives.

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 guidance on when to choose this over get_usdc_balance, get_balances, or get_portfolio, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The multi-chain scope implies a use case but leaves alternatives to inference.

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