get_native_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose rate limits, error conditions, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., balance format, units). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—every word contributes directly to the purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while remaining clear.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., balance in wei or ether), error handling, or network support details beyond what's in the schema. For a tool in a complex blockchain context with many siblings, more guidance is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'address' is for balance checking and 'network' might be optional (though schema says required: ['address'] only). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('native token balance for an address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_erc20_balance and get_nft_balance by specifying 'native token' (e.g., ETH, BNB). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like get_erc20_balance for token balances or get_chain_info for network details, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid address). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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