sbtc_get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about whether the call hits the network, whether a missing address falls back to the configured wallet (only the schema says that), or what the returned amount looks like. For a low-risk single-value read, this is an acceptable but thin disclosure.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The trailing "Tip" is a cross-sell that does not help an agent invoke this specific tool, so it slightly dilutes focus.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description is minimally complete: an agent knows what to pass, but not what comes back — units (sats vs. sBTC), formatting, or error behavior when the address is invalid — all of which are unconstrained by an output schema.

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% and the single `address` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the configured-wallet default. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the sBTC balance") with a clear scope qualifier ("for a wallet address"), which separates it from the STX/BTC/token balance siblings. It never explicitly names those adjacent balance tools, so differentiation is achieved by the resource name alone rather than by routing language.

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?

Usage is only implied: read it when you need an sBTC balance. The one guidance sentence points at `earning_opportunities`, which is a downstream action, not an alternative for retrieving a balance, so it does not help an agent choose between this and `get_token_balance` or `sbtc_get_peg_info`.

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