ugf_check_balance

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the tool is a stateless RPC read that requires no keys. It returns raw balance in atoms as a decimal string. Missing details on error handling or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are well-covered.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second covers parameter usage, third explains behavior and safety. Extremely concise with no redundant information, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use parameters, return format, and that it is stateless and keyless. Nothing crucial is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and includes descriptions. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying the special value 'native' for token_address and explaining the return format (raw balance in smallest unit as decimal string). This adds meaningful context.

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: reading on-chain balance for a wallet on a supported EVM chain. It specifies the verb 'read', the resource 'balance', and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., transaction submission tools) by focusing on a read-only balance query.

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 when needing an EVM token balance and explicitly shows how to specify 'native' or an ERC-20 address. However, it does not compare with siblings like ugf_check_status or ugf_get_nonce, leaving the agent to infer context.

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