Get balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what is returned (on-chain USDC plus three ledger currencies), which signals a read-only aggregate view, but omits whether the bot must be registered, whether network defaults matter, or any rate/permission constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the currency list is informative rather than redundant. It is appropriately sized, though it spends its one clause on return contents rather than on the required parameter.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the required 'bot' argument and the network default. Instead it covers only the return composition, leaving gaps that could cause mis-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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it never mentions the required 'bot' parameter or the 'network' enum (base/base-sepolia). The only indirect link is 'agent wallet', leaving the required identifier semantics unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns the on-chain USDC balance of the agent wallet plus Agent Ledger balances in three named currencies. It implicitly separates itself from sibling chain_address_balance by scoping to the agent wallet, but never names siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as chain_address_balance or ledger_stats despite several balance-related siblings existing. The agent must infer the selection criteria itself.

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