get_base_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, the description does not elaborate on potential errors, return format, or unit of the balance (e.g., wei vs. ether). For a simple balance getter, this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and scope. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It does not specify whether the balance is returned in wei, ether, or another unit, nor does it mention error conditions or network details. This lack of return-value and error context makes the description incomplete for an agent that needs to use the result correctly.

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 one parameter 'address' with a clear description ('Ethereum address to check balance for'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get ETH balance of an address on Base' uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource (ETH balance of an address), and specifies the network (Base). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_base_gas_price, get_base_block_number, and lookup_erc8004_agent, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly implies the tool's usage: when you need the ETH balance of an address on Base. It provides context ('on Base') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tool names are available in context, but the description itself doesn't reference them, so it stops short of an explicit when/when-not comparison.

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