get_utxo_balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the UTXO-scoping context, but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like what happens if the UTXO doesn't exist or whether zero balances are returned. With annotations covering the main safety traits, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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, one-parameter, read-only balance lookup, the description is sufficient. It states the core purpose and scope. While there is no output schema or mention of return format, the tool's nature (token balances for a UTXO) makes the return predictable. Given the low complexity, this is complete enough.

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 fully documents the single 'utxo' parameter with format (txid:vout), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new syntactic or semantic details beyond saying 'specific UTXO', which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does all the work.

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' with a clear resource 'Counterparty token balances' and a precise scope 'attached to a specific UTXO'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_balances (address-level) and get_asset_balances (asset-level) by focusing on the UTXO attachment.

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 the appropriate context: use when you need balances tied to a UTXO rather than an address or asset. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough to guide selection among the many sibling balance tools.

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