Address balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the address-format constraint, which is genuine behavioral context. It does not say what happens when the address format does not match the shard (error vs empty result) or how a nonexistent address is reported.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the format constraint immediately after. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what comes back, yet it never says whether the balance is a raw integer, a decimal string, or in what units. For a balance-query tool that is a meaningful omission, though the input side is adequately covered.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does the important part: it ties the address format to the shard value (0x for shard 0, 1S.. for shards 1-4). It still never states the valid shard range explicitly (only implying 0-4) or the default of 0 that the schema sets.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: the native SCDO balance of an address on one shard. An agent immediately understands this is a single-shard balance read. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_balance, leaving ambiguity about which balance tool to pick.

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 address-format rule ('Shard0 takes 0x addresses; shards 1-4 take 1S.. classic addresses') functions as an implied usage condition that tells the agent which shard/address pairing is valid. Beyond that there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to get_balance, which is the obvious alternative for balance queries.

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