arc72_balance_of

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and behavior. It implies a read-only operation through 'balanceOf' but does not mention edge cases, error conditions, or whether state is modified. This is a gap for an unannotated tool.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the method name and conveys the essential meaning without wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 the low complexity of this query tool and complete schema coverage, the description is adequate for most purposes. It could mention return format or error behavior, but the description's clarity and the schema's completeness make it mostly complete.

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 input schema describes all three parameters fully (100% coverage), including address format and network enum. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond highlighting the address parameter in the method signature, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies the exact operation (balanceOf) and the result (number of NFTs owned) for ARC-72, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like arc72_owner_of or arc72_total_supply.

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 usage via the function name and result, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like arc200_balance_of or arc72_owner_of, nor any exclusions. Usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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