get_wallet_token_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it expects input and returns output, without mentioning that it's a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The behavioral profile is under-specified.

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 short and front-loaded, with two sentences that convey purpose, input, and output without redundancy. Every part is necessary and efficiently communicates the essential information.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and error handling details. For a tool that retrieves balances, it is adequate but not comprehensive, missing context like pagination or limit considerations.

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 description adds high-level context by stating it takes a 'WalletTokenPairsContainer', but does not explain the individual parameters. The input schema's nested descriptions for 'wallet' and 'token' provide useful guidance (e.g., how to get addresses/wallet names), but the top-level parameter has 0% description coverage. The description offers baseline value but relies on schema for details.

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 tool gets the balance for a list of wallet/token pairs, specifying the input type (WalletTokenPairsContainer) and output type (list of WalletTokenBalance). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stake_balances or get_all_wallets which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools like get_stake_balances. The description only states what it expects and returns, lacking usage context.

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