Get Quai Balance

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it automatically resolves the correct zone, returns balances in both raw wei and formatted QUAI, and requires no gas, signing, or private key. These details are especially useful because there is no output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the most important behavioral caveat and return format. Every sentence contributes context without redundancy or filler.

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 read-only query tool with three well-schema-documented parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, the automatic zone resolution behavior, and the absence of signing/gas requirements. The lacking output schema is partially mitigated by explicitly stating the return units.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by clarifying that the address parameter is sufficient and that zone/shard selection is resolved internally, which prevents an agent from searching for a nonexistent zone parameter. It does not add meaning for network or blockTag, but the schema already covers those.

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 identifies the action (get), the resource (QUAI balance of an address), and the network (Quai Network). It also distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_qi_balance by explicitly naming QUAI, and from resolve_zone by stating that zone resolution is handled automatically.

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 context for when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs an address's QUAI balance, and it explains that no shard specification is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_qi_balance, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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