get_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context like 'current balance' and accepts two input forms, but it does not state potential side effects (none expected), network specificity, or error handling for invalid addresses. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word earns its place. The example 'my-main' and the cross-reference to save_wallet are concise and useful without being verbose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, no output schema, and rich sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete. It informs the agent about input formats and a related workflow, though it could optionally mention the return format or error behavior.

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 already describes the 'address' parameter with 100% coverage, including the dual nature (address or wallet name). The description reinforces this and adds a practical tip about using save_wallet, providing extra value beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Get the current balance of a Qubic address or saved wallet.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('balance'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction or get_transfer_history by focusing on balance retrieval.

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 explains when to use this tool by specifying acceptable inputs (60-character Qubic address or saved wallet name) and provides a cross-reference to save_wallet for setting up named wallets. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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