Rustchain Balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Check balance' without mentioning whether it is a read-only operation, any error conditions, rate limits, or response behavior. The existence of an output schema mitigates return-format ambiguity, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple balance check, though it could have included a note on usage context without being verbose.

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 simple read-only balance check, the description is technically sufficient to convey the core function, especially with a schema and output schema present. However, it lacks contextual guidance to help an agent choose this tool among many similar ones (e.g., wallet_balance), and it doesn't clarify the distinction between 'RTC' and other token balances. This is a minimal viable description but not comprehensive.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (wallet_id) with a detailed description and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('RTC token balance for a wallet'). It is unambiguous about the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling wallet_balance, which might also check balances, though the 'RTC' qualifier implies rustchain-specific context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wallet_balance, rustchain_stats, or rustchain_transfer_signed. The description only states the action without any context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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