get_balances

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It indicates a non-destructive read operation ('check'), but lacks details on data freshness, authentication, or whether balances include staked or pending amounts. Basic sufficiency for a simple read, but gaps remain.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and included token examples. Excellent conciseness.

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?

No output schema, so the description should clarify return format or coverage. Only lists four tokens, but the name and sibling tools suggest broader scope. Lacks information on whether all balances are returned or just those tokens, and the response structure is undefined.

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?

No parameters exist (0 count, schema coverage 100% trivially). Per rules, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since there are none, but it does not hinder either.

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 retrieves wallet balances and lists specific tokens (ETH, USDC, POOP, WETH). The verb 'check' and resource 'wallet balances' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'portfolio_value' which likely calculates total value.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., 'portfolio_value', 'get_pending_poop'). Usage is implied as 'checking your balances', but context about prerequisites or exclusion of other balance-related tools is absent.

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