Get Pi wallet balance

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by detailing critical behavioral traits: the tool returns a not-found error for unfunded addresses (distinguishing 'absent' from 'holds nothing'), emphasizes that it reads Pi Testnet, and warns that balances are chain-specific. It also instructs to always report the network from the result field. No contradictions with annotations.

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 paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential behavioral details in a logical order. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's use and constraints.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, behavioral quirks, and output interpretation. It is self-contained and provides enough information for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema's pattern and description: it explains the exact character set, provides an example with a warning about wrong addresses, and clarifies that the example is not a default. This enhances usability.

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: 'Read the current Pi and custom-token balances of a Pi wallet address.' It specifies the verb (read), resource (wallet address), and what it retrieves (balances). It also distinguishes its use case from potential alternatives by explicitly stating when to call it.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: '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.' It also mentions that it cannot move funds and needs no credentials. However, it does not explicitly exclude sibling tools (e.g., get_account_payments for transactions), so it lacks a clear when-not-to-use comparison.

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