get_balances

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states this is a read operation, mentions the active network context, and discloses a specific failure mode (errors if no wallet). It does not detail return structure, but for a simple 0-parameter balance reader this is enough.

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?

One focused, front-loaded sentence that explains the purpose, the network, the wallet scope, and the error condition without any filler. Every word 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fully self-contained: it states what is read, why each balance matters, what network is used, and what error to expect. Nothing a caller needs is missing.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description still adds meaningful context by specifying what the returned amounts mean (ETH for gas, USDC for payments) and how the active network is chosen.

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 uses a specific verb (Reads) and a specific resource: the wallet's ETH and USDC balances on a specific network (Base testnet/mainnet). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_history and get_wallet_status, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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?

It gives helpful context: the balances are for gas and payment, and it errors if there is no wallet. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives or state when the agent should prefer get_wallet_status or get_history instead, so usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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