beacon_gas_balance

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action ('check balance') without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adds the fee context, but fails to describe the output format or any operational constraints.

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 concise (5 lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The fee list provides helpful context without unnecessary words, earning a high score.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly. It explains the purpose and provides fee context, though it omits potential error conditions.

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 single parameter `agent_id` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no further semantics. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 checks RTC gas balance for Beacon messaging, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like beacon_gas_deposit and beacon_send_message by focusing solely on balance checking.

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 implies usage for checking balance before sending messages, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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