debank_get_user_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description covers behavioral aspects. It explains the difference in behavior when chain_id is provided versus omitted, and includes a constraint on address format. It does not discuss data freshness or rate limits, but for a read-like tool this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. It is slightly verbose but all content is relevant. The first sentence efficiently states the 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?

The description is complete given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema. It covers both return formats with examples, includes parameter constraints, and provides multiple usage examples.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides detailed explanations for both parameters. It specifies that address must start with '0x' and provides a list of valid chain_id examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Get user's total balance or chain-specific balance from DeBank'. This directly communicates the action and resource. It easily distinguishes from sibling tools like debank_get_user_tokens or debank_get_user_protocols.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool, including parameters for total vs. specific chain. It includes examples that demonstrate typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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