Balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior beyond them: that both shielded and public balances are returned, that passing `pool` restricts results to a single private pool, and that `wait=true` blocks for up to 30 seconds due to eventual consistency after a deposit. It omits any mention of authorization requirements or the shape/ordering of returned balances.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the parameter caveats. The telegraphic "With pool:" fragment is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool is read-only with no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden; it says private and public balances come back but not in what structure, units, or whether zero balances are included. Combined with the unresolved question of which account is being queried, an agent has enough to call it but not to fully anticipate the response.

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 `wait` parameter has no schema description, and the description compensates well: "wait=true polls up to 30 s while a private balance reads 0 (right after a deposit)" explains semantics, latency and the triggering scenario. The schema already covers `pool` and `chain` (67% coverage), so the description only needed to fill the `wait` gap, which it does.

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?

"Private (shielded) and public balances" identifies the resource returned and the pool scoping rule, but it uses a noun phrase with no verb and never says whose balances are returned (the connected wallet vs. an address, which matters given the sibling blackpool_address). An agent can infer the core purpose but must guess at the subject of the query.

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 when-to-use guidance is given and no sibling is named: it is unclear how this differs from blackpool_assets or blackpool_address. The only conditional statement is about the `pool` parameter narrowing output to one pool, which is scoping rather than usage guidance.

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