Get Pi wallet balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'Reads public ledger data only — it cannot move funds and needs no credentials,' and clarifies it can check account existence. This aligns with annotations and provides extra behavioral insight without redundancy.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that capture purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints without extra fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple parameter set (1 required param), existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and its non-mutating, no-credential nature. No critical gaps.

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 fully describes the 'address' parameter with type, pattern, and description (100% coverage). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads Pi and custom-token balances for a wallet address, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools (payments, transaction, verify_user) by focusing on balance checking and account existence.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this whenever you need to know how much Pi an address holds, whether it holds a particular token, or whether the account exists on-chain at all'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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