get_historical_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., numeric balance, units). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and output details. For a 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, it's passable but could be more informative.

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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'blockNumber' is used for historical context, but doesn't clarify syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Get balance at a specific block height' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('balance'), with specificity about the temporal aspect ('at a specific block height'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_cosmos_balance' or 'get_solana_balance' by emphasizing historical retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for historical queries, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or name sibling tools for comparison (e.g., 'get_cosmos_balance' for current balances).

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