apay_get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does convey that this is a non-mutating inspection of live state and enumerates what is returned. It stops short of disclosing failure modes (e.g., unconfigured wallet), whether it triggers an RPC call, or any caching/latency behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the key facts (live, on-chain, Base L2, asset list) and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully substitutes for one by naming the returned asset types. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, with only edge-case behavior left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs because none exist.

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 precise verb+resource ('inspect the agent's live on-chain balances') with the exact chain (Base L2) and the specific assets (ETH, USDC, $APAY), so the agent knows what data it will get back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the possibly-overlapping sibling apay_get_wallet_status.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as apay_get_wallet_status or the relationship to apay_request. Usage is only loosely implied by the name and the balance-focused wording.

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