chainpeek: get a native or ERC-20 balance

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: latency (0.2-1 s), price (USD 0.002), a free tier (10 chain reads per IP per UTC day), the exact return shape, and a security caveat that token symbols and on-chain/page text are untrusted. This is rich behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then alternatives, return format, cost/latency, and the untrusted-data caveat in roughly priority order. Slightly dense with pricing/free-tier/security lines, but each earns its place; only minor overlap between the symbol warning and the untrusted-data line.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still summarizes returns (wei + formatted, or symbol/decimals/raw/formatted). Combined with pricing, latency, free-tier and security context, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so chain, token and address are already fully documented in the schema; the description notes ERC-20 vs native semantics consistent with the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (read native or ERC-20 balance of an address) and scopes the chains (Ethereum, Base, Robinhood Chain). Distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_portfolio (multiple tokens) and get_solana_balance (Solana), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives alternatives and the selecting condition: use get_portfolio for several tokens at once, get_solana_balance for Solana. This is exactly the when-to-use vs alternative guidance the dimension rewards.

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