get_balances

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: the call is free, does not execute transactions, uses a configured wallet if none is provided, and returns a structured dictionary with success/error handling. This goes beyond what the schema indicates.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and an Example. It is appropriately sized – every section contributes to understanding, including code snippets illustrating both usage patterns.

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 description fully covers the tool's behavior, parameter, return format, and example usage. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a detailed return outline, no critical information 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 schema only provides the parameter name and default, with no description. The description explains the parameter's meaning and optional fallback, adding semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Get token balances for a wallet address via Jupiter Ultra API.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_swap_transaction by explicitly noting it does not execute transactions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to check wallet holdings before making trades.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to select it for read-only balance checks.

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