Get AA Balances

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns raw ledger integers in smallest units, defaults to mainnet, requires network confirmation when unspecified, and instructs agents never to surface raw integers to users. This operational context goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 text is longer than a bare sentence but stays scannable with 'Network:' and 'Amounts:' blocks, and every paragraph earns its place by adding operational guidance. It is front-loaded with the core definition before usage caveats. Minor redundancy is acceptable.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation decisions—which network to hit and how to interpret raw units—and points to siblings for deeper analysis. It hints at 'display_total fields' but does not enumerate the response shape, so an agent cannot know the exact return structure in advance. Despite that gap, it is sufficient to call the tool correctly and handle its output safely.

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%, forcing the description to carry parameter meaning. It explains the network parameter in full: the two enum values, the mainnet default, and the instruction to confirm with the user. Address semantics are only described indirectly as 'one autonomous agent address,' leaving some detail to the schema's min/max length constraints.

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 opening phrase 'Raw hub read' plus 'Returns balances held by one autonomous agent address' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly contrasts with obyte_analyze_aa in the same breath, so an agent can tell this raw AA-balance tool apart from the decimals-aware sibling.

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 directs agents to obyte_analyze_aa when a decimals-aware summary is wanted, and it gives concrete network-selection guidance including confirming the user's intended network before calling. It does not, however, discuss when to prefer this over obyte_get_balances or other balance-related siblings.

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