get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does: 'Get' signals a non-mutating query and the description discloses the response contents, including how SPL balances differ by network. It does not mention failure modes or staleness, but for a zero-argument read tool that is a minor gap.

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 short sentences, with the operation and target front-loaded and the return-value detail following immediately. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description fully covers what the caller gets back and that the result is network-aware. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly indicates that the relevant wallet is the agent's own context rather than a parameter. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 names a specific resource ('Solana wallet balance for this agent') and enumerates the exact returned fields (address, network, SOL, SPL balances), so it is unmistakably a read-only balance lookup rather than one of the many job, payment, or contact siblings. The per-network SPL note (USDC everywhere, LSM on mainnet) further disambiguates its 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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs the agent's own wallet balance, especially before payment or withdrawal operations such as send_payment or withdraw. However, the description does not explicitly state preconditions, when not to use it, or which sibling might be a better fit for broader financial data.

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