get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or what the return format is. It is adequate for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieve' and the object. No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place efficiently.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the currency (USDC), the wallet type (Agent's Smart Contract Wallet), and the temporal aspect ('current'). It does not mention network or chain, but that might be implied by the tool's context or output schema. Overall sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter details because none exist. This is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves 'the current USDC wallet balance for the Agent's Smart Contract Wallet.' The verb 'retrieve' and the specific resource (USDC wallet balance) make the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from siblings like nanopay_balance by specifying the Agent's Smart Contract Wallet.

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 provides clear context: use this to get the current USDC balance of the Agent's SCW. It implicitly tells the agent when to use it (when needing the SCW balance). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use nanopay_balance instead. That prevents a 5.

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