get_balance

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true), but adds no extra context about behavior beyond the schema. It doesn't disclose what happens for invalid addresses or unknown assets, but given the annotations already indicate a safe read operation, a score of 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 filler, front-loading the action and resource immediately. Every word is necessary.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is adequately complete. It lacks explicit alternatives and return format, but those are not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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% with both parameters already described. The description does not add any new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource ('balance of a specific asset for a Bitcoin address'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_balances which would return multiple balances. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 for a single asset-address pair but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer this over get_balances or get_asset_balances. Since siblings include similar balance tools, explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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