zetrix_get_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (balance in ZETA and ZETRIX units) and the conversion rate, but fails to address critical aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid addresses), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential return details and a unit conversion note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and return format adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or operational constraints, which are important for a tool interacting with a blockchain system. This results in a minimally viable but incomplete context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as address format examples or validation rules. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Get the ZETRIX balance') and resource ('of an account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like zetrix_get_account or zetrix_get_account_assets by focusing exclusively on balance retrieval. It also specifies the return format, which further clarifies its purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zetrix_sdk_get_balance or other account-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the account must be activated or have a specific format, leaving usage unclear.

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