Get Qi Wallet Balance

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the actual mechanism: reconstructing the wallet from its mnemonic and querying network unspent outputs rather than reading a stored public address. It also explains spendable vs total balance, maturity exclusions, and the payment-code address derivation limitation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds the differentiator, return semantics, and caveat in a logical order. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and fully documented schema, the description covers all non-obvious calling concerns: when to use it, why the password is needed, how the balance is computed, what the return values represent, and when counterpartyPaymentCodes is mandatory. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return description.

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%, but the description adds meaning to password by explaining why it is required (mnemonic reconstruction) and to counterpartyPaymentCodes by clarifying that payment-code addresses are pairwise-derived and otherwise undiscoverable. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 states a precise action and resource: 'Check the Qi balance of a wallet', scoped to wallets created with create_qi_wallet or import_qi_wallet. It also distinguishes itself from get_balance (QUAI), so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly contrasts this tool with get_balance (QUAI) and explains why the password is needed for Qi UTXO balance reconstruction. It also gives the condition for when to pass counterpartyPaymentCodes for payment-code funds, naming send_qi as the relevant sibling.

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