get_account_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly confirm safety, mention any side effects, network behavior, or error conditions. For a getter this is a minimal but acceptable disclosure, yet it lacks the context expected without 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description provides a high-level summary of the return content ('balance and account information'), which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it could be more explicit about what 'account information' includes, such as nonce or token balances, given the output schema is absent.

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% for both parameters (address and network), so the schema already fully documents their meaning and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Get STX balance and account information for a Stacks address.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource (STX balance/account) that differentiates it from siblings like get_transaction_info or get_block_info.

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 context is implied by the purpose: use this when you need a Stacks address's balance or account details. However, there is no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or network selection advice beyond the schema.

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