get_balance

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It fails to disclose that this is a read-only operation or mention any potential costs, rate limits, or prerequisites. It only describes return values with a vague '(devnet)' hint.

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?

Single, clear sentence that front-loads the main action. No superfluous words. Efficiently communicates purpose and outputs.

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, parameterless tool, the description adequately covers purpose and return fields. However, it does not explain network specificity, whether it works on mainnet, or any limitations. Without output schema, the description should provide more detail on the return structure.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns without needing to clarify parameters. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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 it gets the Solana wallet balance for the agent and lists the returned fields (address, network, SOL balance, USDC balance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which have different verbs and resources.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but given the distinct purpose (getting balance) and sibling tools covering different actions (add_contact, send_payment, etc.), usage context is implied. However, no when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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