base_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the call is pay-per-call and that it returns both native balance and live USD value, which is useful. However, it does not mention failure modes, network assumptions, or what happens for invalid addresses, so transparency is only partial.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the pricing detail is relevant and succinctly included.

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 two-parameter balance tool, the description names the expected outputs adequately. But there is no output schema, no explanation of the optional fields parameter, and no error or edge-case context, so an agent is left to guess how to customize or interpret results.

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 address parameter is documented in the schema, but the optional 'fields' parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the tool description. Since schema description coverage is only 50%, the description needed to compensate by explaining the fields parameter, and it does not.

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 immediately identifies the resource (base address) and the output (native balance and live USD value). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on balance retrieval for a single address, and the 'base' prefix sets the chain 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as polygon_balance or base_health. It mentions pay-per-call pricing, which is a cost signal, but does not state conditions, exclusions, or situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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