get_asset_balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination requirements or potential need for multiple calls. It does not contradict annotations, but also adds no operational detail.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no irrelevant details. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose in the least possible 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 simple read-only nature, the schema covers all parameters, and annotations provide safety info, the description is mostly complete for a basic query tool. However, it lacks explicit mention of pagination to retrieve 'all' holders and does not differentiate from similar balance tools, which would make it fully 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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the schema fully covers their meaning. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the term 'specific asset' aligning with the asset parameter, which is already documented. Per the baseline, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 retrieves balances for a specific asset across all holders, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_balances or get_utxo_balances, so it misses the full 5 score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It simply states what it does, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer its usage.

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