MESH Balance

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds useful content context (balance, activity, provenance) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or data freshness.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core subject and then clarifies the breakdown. Every phrase adds value without filler.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description sufficiently covers what the user gets: balance, recent activity, and provenance. The phrase 'recent activity' is somewhat vague, but the overall scope is simple and the annotations provide safety context.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema has no properties, so parameter semantics are trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (MESH credit balance) and what it reports: recent activity and a provenance breakdown (earned vs purchased vs promotional). Although there is no explicit verb, the phrasing makes the read/query purpose unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools focused on other MESH actions.

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 checking one's MESH credit balance and activity, but it does not explicitly say when to use it or when not to. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned relative to sibling tools such as mesh_publish or mesh_refer.

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