get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to state that this is a read-only operation (likely safe), whether it requires authentication, or what the response format is. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. It contains no redundant information. While it could be expanded with context, it is not overly verbose for a simple tool, earning a high conciseness score.

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 tool's simplicity, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify the return format (e.g., number as TRX or Sun), any error conditions, or differentiate from sibling tools that might also report balances. Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing the response structure.

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 a single parameter 'address' described as 'TRON address'. The tool description repeats this ('for an address') without adding extra meaning, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no significant 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's purpose: 'Get TRX balance for an address'. It specifies the verb (Get), resource (TRX balance), and scope (for an address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_resources or get_staking_info, which serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as address format, or when to prefer other tools like get_account_resources for more detailed account information. Usage context is entirely implied.

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