get-balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default behavior for the address parameter, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe what the balance represents (e.g., native tokens, specific denomination), whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a financial tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality and key behavioral nuance (the default address). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by the important qualification.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (financial balance query), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and one behavioral aspect (default address), but doesn't address what the return value contains, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The description works but leaves the agent with unanswered questions about the operation's full context.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the default behavior for the address parameter ('defaults to your own address if none provided'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'balance of an address', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-account-info' or 'get-delegations' by focusing specifically on balance retrieval rather than broader account information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these similar tools, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning the default behavior when no address is provided, which helps understand when to omit the parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-account-info' (which might include balance among other data) or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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