get_wallet_balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context like the per-request cost and 'any supported chain' scope, but omits behavior details such as response format, error handling, rate limits, or what happens for unsupported chains. The 'get' verb implies a safe read, but this is not explicit.

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 states the purpose and cost with no redundant words. It is concise and directly to the point.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the format of returned balances, whether it returns all tokens or only selected ones, or list the supported chains. This information would need to be inferred from the tool name and examples.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (chain and address) with clear types and examples. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only clarifying that token balances are queried and chains are supported, but does not go beyond the schema's definitions.

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 tool's function: retrieving token balances for a wallet address on any supported chain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet_transactions (transactions) and get_wallet_pnl (profit/loss), using a specific verb and resource.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_wallet_pnl or get_token_prices. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone.

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