agirails_get_balance

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals the output is a TypeScript snippet (not raw data), which is critical for correct agent behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose, output type, and usage hint. No wasted words.

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 simple input schema (1 optional param) and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what the tool returns, its content, and a practical usage tip. Slightly missing parameter detail but overall complete for its complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the 'network' parameter. However, the parameter is simple (optional enum with default), and the schema alone is sufficient. The description adds no additional semantics, meeting the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a TypeScript snippet to get USDC balance, listing components (total, locked, available). This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings, which are primarily actions (accept, cancel) or other queries (get_transaction).

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?

Includes explicit advice: 'Run the generated code before committing to transactions,' indicating when to use. While no explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios are given, the context from sibling tools and read-only annotations makes it clear this is a preparatory read operation.

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