wallet_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals cost ($0.02 USDC per call), settlement details (Base mainnet from your wallet), and return information (balance, block height, on-chain receipt). While it does not mention rate limits or error handling, the disclosed cost and return structure are sufficient for this simple query 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with the main action stated upfront. Each sentence adds meaningful information (supported chains, token resolution, cost, use cases). It could be slightly shorter, but there is no fluff or redundancy.

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, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it explains what the tool returns (balance, block height, receipt), costs, and supported chains. It does not cover error scenarios or timeout behavior, but for a balance-checking tool this is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that common tokens (USDC, USDT, WETH, WBTC, DAI) resolve by symbol and others need contract addresses. It also clarifies that the threshold parameter returns a sufficient/deficient flag. This additional context helps the agent understand parameter usage better.

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 wallet balances across 5 EVM chains, returning native or ERC-20 balances with optional threshold checks. It specifies supported chains and token resolution methods. This is a specific verb+resource description that fully conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks about: wallet balance, token balance, checking if a wallet has enough funds, multi-chain balance lookup.' This provides clear guidance for the AI agent on context triggers, and given sibling tools are unrelated, no alternative guidance is needed.

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