keeper_agent_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context: the balance is live, multi-chain, and onchain, and 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation. But it does not explicitly state that it never mutates state, how freshness is guaranteed, or what happens when the optional address is omitted.

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 sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning relative to the tool's purpose.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. For an optional-parameter inspection tool, the description is largely enough to select and call it; the only notable gap is the meaning of the optional address parameter.

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?

The schema has one optional 'address' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot determine whether the address selects a different agent, filters a specific chain, or is required to override a default target.

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 names a specific verb, 'Inspect', and a clear resource: the AI agent's live multi-chain onchain treasury balances, spent budget, and remaining limits. This distinguishes it well from the sibling tools, which are about auditing, settling, and executing transactions.

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 verb 'Inspect' implies the obvious use case — checking balances and budget before taking keeper actions — and the sibling names reinforce the distinction. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named.

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