1s_multi_balance_live

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

The description discloses that it is a batched call, efficient, and that individual token errors do not fail the entire request. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does not mention authorization or rate limits, but read-only behavior is inferred.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Highly concise.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the response structure, but it does address error handling. It differentiates well from sibling tools. Could mention default network or required parameters, but schema already covers that.

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?

All 3 parameters have schema descriptions covering 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema itself. It does not detail the return format or data types.

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 it gets ETH and multiple ERC20 balances in a single batched RPC call, and distinguishes it from single-token balance tools like 1s_erc20_balance_live.

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?

It says to use it to check a wallet's holdings across multiple tokens efficiently, implying a multi-token scenario. It mentions error handling behavior but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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