wallet_get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention permissions, network calls, caching, error behavior, or return format. The token symbol mapping adds context but not behavioral transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by useful clarification of the native token per chain. No redundant or filler text. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple read tool with one fully documented parameter, the description is nearly complete. It explains the native token mapping, which helps interpret results, but does not describe the return value format despite the absence of an output schema. That gap is minor for a balance query.

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% for the single required parameter walletId, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which matches the baseline of 3 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 (Query) and resource (native token balance of a stored wallet). The resource distinguishes it from all named siblings: signing/sending transactions, listing/deleting wallets, generating/importing/exporting, and getting public keys. No ambiguity about what it does.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The native token mapping is contextual but not usage guidance. An agent must infer that this is the tool for reading balances, which is straightforward but not stated.

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