Spl-token Get Balance

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

The description claims 'operation class write' which directly contradicts the annotations' readOnlyHint=true. It also includes misleading write-focused context, failing to accurately disclose the read-only behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 bloated with irrelevant SAP MCP context and write-related instructions that should not appear in a read-only tool. The core information is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the rest is noise. Too long for the simple purpose.

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?

Covers the basic behavior of mint-dependent balance retrieval, but the contradictory write context undermines completeness. Output schema exists, reducing the need for return value description. Still, the irrelevant content detracts.

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?

Despite the input schema having zero parameters, the description introduces the 'mint' parameter and explains its impact on return value. It also lists parameter aliases, adding value. Baseline for zero params is 4, and this is met.

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 it gets token or SOL balance for a wallet, and differentiates by specifying that omitting mint returns native SOL balance. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like spl-token_getTokenAccounts and sol_get_balance.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description includes irrelevant statements about write operations (deploy, mint, transfer, etc.) that do not apply to getBalance, and generic lifecycle context without use-case clarity.

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