azeth_balance

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

No annotations provided, but description comprehensively covers: read-only/safety nature ('read-only, single-RPC-call operation and safe to call repeatedly'), authentication mechanism ('owner is determined by the AZETH_PRIVATE_KEY environment variable'), and return structure ('Multi-account breakdown with per-token USD values... EOA is shown first (index 0)').

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (action, usage context, returns, optional filtering, implementation notes, examples). Every sentence serves a distinct purpose. Front-loaded with core functionality, followed by when-to-use, then technical implementation details.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully compensates by detailing the return format (multi-account breakdown, per-token USD values, grand total, ordering of EOA vs smart accounts). Also covers environment variable dependencies (AZETH_PRIVATE_KEY, AZETH_CHAIN) making it complete for a balance query tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds valuable contextual usage guidance: 'Optionally filter to a single smart account by providing its address' explains the filtering behavior, and the examples ('{} or { "smartAccount": "#1" }') demonstrate practical usage patterns beyond raw schema definitions.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Check all balances with USD values for your EOA and all Azeth smart accounts' provides clear verb (Check), resource (balances), scope (EOA + all smart accounts), and differentiates from siblings like azeth_transfer, azeth_pay, and azeth_deposit by focusing on portfolio reading vs execution.

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?

Strong 'Use this when' section specifies exact scenarios (checking ETH/USDC/WETH holdings, getting portfolio value 'before making a transfer or payment'). Implicitly distinguishes from execution tools by mentioning the 'before' context, though it could explicitly name sibling alternatives like 'instead of azeth_transfer'.

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