get_native_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the function (get balance) and defaults (owner, network) already present in the schema. It does not disclose caching behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a read operation.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any redundant words or filler. It is optimally 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 the low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but could be improved by clarifying the return format (e.g., balance as a string in the smallest unit) or network-specific details. It meets minimum viability but lacks some context an agent might need.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (owner, network) including defaults. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('native token balance'), and specifies the token types (TRX/ETH/BNB) and scope (configured wallet or specified owner). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_balance, which likely targets non-native tokens.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as get_token_balance for ERC-20 tokens. The purpose is implied but lacks explicit usage boundaries or prerequisites, making it less helpful for an AI agent choosing between similar tools.

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