connect_drop_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that this is a read-only balance check and identifies the wallet scope, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, permissions, or supported-chain limitations beyond the schema's short note.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is tucked into a second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter balance-check tool, the description covers what it does, who the wallet belongs to, and why to call it. The absence of an output schema means the return shape is not described, but the simple nature of the tool makes the description adequate for selection and invocation.

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% and the only parameter, chainId, is already described as 'EVM chain ID (Smart Send supported chains only).' The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so it neither hurts nor improves on 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('native and ERC-20 balances'), and a specific scope ('API key owner Smart Send embedded wallet on a chain'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like connect_drop and connect_get_price.

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 says 'Use before connect_drop to verify gas and token funds,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not mention exclusions or alternative balance-related tools, but none are apparent among the siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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