Wallet Balance

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses how balances are fetched: eth_getBalance, eth_call balanceOf, and spotClearinghouseState. It also reveals the token resolution limit, the rate-limit awareness, and the output row structure with balance_raw, balance, and source.

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 information-dense but well-organized, leading with the core purpose and then listing sources, limits, output fields, and an example. Every sentence adds value and no content is redundant with the annotations.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral context: supported balance types, token resolution logic, rate limits, output fields, and an invocation example. Nothing critical 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?

The only parameter, address, has no schema description, but the description includes a concrete example call and makes clear the address is a wallet address on HyperEVM. The 0x example sufficiently compensates for the single low-coverage parameter.

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 what the tool does: returns wallet balances across HyperEVM native, ERC-20, and Hyperliquid spot sources. It names the exact RPC methods and output structure, making it distinct from sibling tools like token_transfers or market_overview.

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 gives clear context on what the tool covers and even notes the 20-token cap and 100 req/min RPC budget. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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