wallet_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost per call, the prerequisite of a wallet, and that balances are scaled by decimals. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, idempotency, or data freshness, leaving gaps for a potentially complex call.

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 extremely concise: one brief sentence with a bracketed note for cost/requirement. It front-loads the cost and prerequisite, then clearly states the action and output. Every part is necessary and well-structured with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (scaled balances, symbol, contract) and suggests use cases (UI, portfolio tool). It covers supported networks. However, it does not mention error handling, pagination for many tokens, or potential timeouts, which could be relevant for a tool with network-specific behavior.

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 100% coverage, providing clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new information beyond the schema; it only reiterates the network options and address format already present in the schema. Thus, the description adds little value 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 specifies the action: look up native coin balance and all ERC-20 holdings for a wallet address on multiple networks. It states the returned data (scaled balances, symbol, contract). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'wallet_balances', which could cause confusion.

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 includes a prerequisite ('wallet required') and a cost note, implying when to use. It also suggests the output is suitable for UI or portfolio tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'wallet_transactions'.

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