arc200_has_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels this a 'read' operation, indicating it is non-mutating, and clarifies the semantic of 'has balance' as checking for a non-zero balance box. However, it introduces vague jargon 'ulujs dual-schema' without explanation and does not disclose return type or edge cases.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the function name. However, the phrase 'ulujs dual-schema read' is cryptic and may confuse rather than clarify, slightly reducing its structural effectiveness.

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 simple boolean read operation, the description covers the core behavior ('whether the account has a non-zero balance box') and is sufficient given the schema fully documents inputs. It does not explicitly state the return value, but the phrasing implies a boolean result. No output schema exists, so a bit more detail would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (network, appId, address) described. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond mentioning 'address' in the function signature, so it provides no 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 states the tool checks whether an account has a non-zero balance box via the ARC-200 hasBalance function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arc200_balance_of by focusing on the existence of a balance rather than the amount.

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 the tool is a read-only query for verifying balance box existence, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling context suggests balance_of for amounts, but no direct comparison is given.

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