rustchain_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value (balance in RTC tokens) and a reference rate, but lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'check'). It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensively.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the parameter with examples, and the third clarifies the return format and conversion rate. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, simple query), annotations are absent, but an output schema exists (so return values needn't be fully explained). The description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return context adequately, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling.

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. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'wallet_id', including examples of valid values (miner wallet addresses/IDs and RTC addresses), which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic string type.

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 the specific action ('Check RTC token balance') and resource ('for a wallet'), with explicit mention of the currency (RTC tokens). It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which are either unrelated (bottube_*) or perform different Rustchain operations (create_wallet, transfer, etc.).

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 usage context by specifying it checks balance for a wallet, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rustchain_stats' or 'rustchain_miners'. However, the purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings that confusion is unlikely.

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