get_wallet_balances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple balance check, the description does not even state that it is a query (no mutation), which is a gap in transparency.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it omits mention of the mainnet option, which is important for accuracy. It earns a pass for brevity but loses points for incomplete coverage of the tool's scope.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to cover return values, error conditions, and limitations. It only specifies inputs and scope (tokens, network) but leaves the agent uninformed about what the balance response looks like, pagination (if any), or failure modes. This is insufficient for a tool that is otherwise simple.

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 describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; in fact, it introduces a contradiction by stating 'on Pharos Atlantic Testnet' while the network parameter allows mainnet. This misalignment reduces the value added beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: retrieving balances for specific tokens (PHRS, USDC, USDT, WETH, WPHRS) for a given wallet on the Pharos Atlantic Testnet. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'balances' and explicit token list provides solid purpose clarity, though the exclusive mention of testnet slightly limits accuracy since the schema also supports mainnet.

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 implies usage when needing balances of the listed tokens, but it offers no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to siblings like get_wallet_profile (which might also return balances) or get_token_price. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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