Get balance

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that this is a read-only operation returning only the native token balance and its unit format. It does not describe possible error/revert behaviors or block scope, but these are relatively minor for a simple balance getter.

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?

A single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the most important facts: the resource, the token type, and the return format. There is no filler, repetition, or ambiguous phrasing.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation context and return unit. The schema fully documents the address and network parameters, so the description's only real gap is not describing failure or formatting edge cases, which is unlikely to block correct usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats 'address' and 'balance' but adds little beyond what the schema already says; it also doesn't discuss the network parameter beyond what the schema documents.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns the native token (BERG) balance of an address. It also specifies the output format in wei and formatted, which distinguishes it from related token or address tools.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need the native token balance for a given address, optionally specifying a network. The description does not mention when to choose alternative siblings such as get_token_info or get_address_transactions.

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