arc200_balance_of

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the return is 'base units (string in response)', which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, mention any side effects, or describe error conditions. This is minimal but non-trivial context.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the key clarification (base units, string response). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple, and the schema fully documents its parameters. The description adds the return format and units, which is helpful given the lack of an output schema. However, it omits any comparison to sibling tools or edge case behavior, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (appId, address, network) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema offers. The 'base units' note clarifies the return rather than the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 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 specifies the action (ARC-200 balanceOf) and the resource (a specific token holder on an ARC-200 contract). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the standard and noting 'base units' for the return, which is a unique characteristic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arc200_has_balance or arc72_balance_of. The description does not provide context for selection or exclude cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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