Get Wallet SOL Balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the network (mainnet), but it omits details such as return format (e.g., SOL amount vs lamports) and how invalid addresses are handled. This is a significant gap, but the core read-only nature and network context are present, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify the units of the returned balance (SOL vs lamports) or any error behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, this missing detail leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret the result, making the description minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'address' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is used.

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 tool's function: getting the native SOL balance for a Solana wallet address, explicitly specifying mainnet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_balances (non-native tokens) and get_sol_price (price), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you need a wallet's SOL balance on mainnet), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, this earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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