get_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format (e.g., hex string) or behavior for nonexistent addresses. Since annotations carry the burden, the description is acceptable but adds minimal value.

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 direct and front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant content, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

For a simple read-only balance query, the description plus schema and annotations are largely sufficient. However, no output schema is present, and the description does not mention the return value format, leaving a small gap. Despite this, the tool is straightforward, so it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters documented: 'Block tag or number; defaults to latest' and 'EVM address'. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics, so the baseline 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Get the native PROS balance of an EVM address.' It identifies the resource (native PROS balance) and the subject (EVM address), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_code or get_storage_at. The verb 'Get' is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for reading PROS balances but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as eth_call for token balances or get_transaction_count for nonce. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred use cases, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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