asa_get_holding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' and 'Algod account info' suggest a read-only query, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose any error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. It provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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: 'Return one account's balance and frozen flag for an ASA (Algod account info).' 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description adequately communicates the return value (balance and frozen flag). It does not specify the exact output format or types, but for a straightforward getter, the high-level return fields are sufficient. It is slightly less complete because it doesn't state any caveats or edge cases, but overall it is adequate.

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 clear parameter descriptions (Account to inspect, ASA asset ID, network). The description adds only the contextual phrase 'one account's balance', which reinforces the singular scope but does not add semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

'Return one account's balance and frozen flag' is a specific verb+resource phrase. The phrase 'one account's' clearly distinguishes it from asa_search_holdings (likely multiple accounts) and asa_get_asset (asset info vs holding info). The description fully identifies what the tool does.

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 a singular use case ('one account's'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like asa_search_holdings or asa_get_asset. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided; usage is only implied.

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