runes_get_address_balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden; it implies a read-only lookup through 'Get all' and 'Returns', and it names returned fields such as balance, divisibility, and symbol. However, it does not state whether the call has side effects, whether results are paginated, or what happens for addresses with no runes.

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 short and front-loaded with the core operation and return contents. The final earning_opportunities tip is somewhat tangential, but it does not obscure the primary invocation information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and what address formats are accepted. It could be slightly more complete by describing empty-result behavior or result shape details, but no critical invocation information is missing.

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, and the description adds useful meaning by specifying that the address can be any Bitcoin address format, with examples including P2WPKH, P2TR, and legacy addresses.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting Bitcoin Rune balances for a Bitcoin address, with the address scope clearly constraining the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_rune_balances, but the address-specific framing makes the purpose mostly clear.

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?

It says the tool is useful for checking which runes a wallet owns, which implies its use case, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives such as get_rune_balances. The earning_opportunities tip is unrelated to choosing this tool versus other balance tools.

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