ecash_check_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds useful context like 'on Base mainnet' and 'any address', but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any potential side effects, errors, or rate limits. The word 'check' implies non-mutating behavior, but no explicit safety or behavioral guarantees are made.

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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or restating the tool name. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the action, the asset (ECASH), the address scope, and the network. It does not explicitly mention the return format, but this is likely implied for a balance check. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 schema fully documents the single 'address' parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'any address' and restricting to 'Base mainnet', which clarifies the network context and scope—information not present in the schema's description. This extra context helps the agent understand the valid input range.

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 tool's function: 'Check the ECASH token balance for any address on Base mainnet.' The verb 'check' and the specific resource 'ECASH token balance' make the purpose unambiguous. The unique focus on balance distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecash_send or ecash_get_agent_info.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or direct them to other tools for related operations. The implied use case (checking a balance) exists, but no explicit context or contrasting directions are given.

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