get_balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'all' (indicating a list) and does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds slight context but no significant behavioral details.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose directly. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it exceptionally concise and easy to parse.

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 rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. Though there is no output schema, the description accurately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Pagination behavior is implied by the schema parameters, so the description does not need to repeat it. Slightly more detail about return format would be helpful, but not essential.

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 100% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description's mention of 'Bitcoin address' mirrors the address parameter description and adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('all Counterparty token balances'), and the scope ('for a Bitcoin address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_balance (singular) and get_asset_balances (balances for an asset) by specifying 'all' and 'for a Bitcoin address'.

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: to retrieve all token balances for a given address. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, the specificity of 'all' and 'for a Bitcoin address' makes the appropriate use case clear without needing to name sibling tools.

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