Get balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral nuance: USD value is only present where Helius prices the token, which warns the agent about partial output completeness. It does not mention rate limits or pricing coverage gaps beyond that.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core capability front-loaded and the usage trigger second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with fully documented params and no output schema, this covers what is returned (balances plus optional USD value) and when to call it. It could note response shape or the 20-wallet cap, which is left entirely to the schema.

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% and all three parameters (addresses, limit, includeZero) are documented in-schema, so baseline is 3. The description only implies multi-wallet support via 'one or more wallets' and adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: SOL and SPL token balances for one or more wallets, plus USD valuation. This is distinguishable from balance-adjacent siblings like get_assets or analyze_wallet because it names the exact asset classes and the multi-wallet scope.

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?

Explicitly says to use this 'before any transfer or portfolio question,' giving clear positive context. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or an exclusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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