get_balance

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already covering safety, the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns both confirmed and unconfirmed balance, and it requires a backend. These details go beyond the annotations and help set expectations about dependency and output scope.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the Args list is clear. However, the phrase 'Needs a backend' is vague and not elaborately useful, slightly reducing the overall value of the sentence.

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 low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly: purpose, parameter semantics, and a backend prerequisite. It does not address usage alternatives, but that gap is already captured in usage_guidelines.

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 0%, so the description's Args section carries the burden. It clearly explains that address is a Bitcoin address and that network overrides the server's network, adding meaning beyond the bare type definitions. It lacks specifics like network format or allowed values, so it is not a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('an address'), and output ('confirmed and unconfirmed balance'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_utxos or get_tx_history. It explicitly mentions both balance types, making its function unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related note, 'Needs a backend,' is a prerequisite rather than a selection criterion, and it does not explain what a backend means or when this tool is preferable to other get_* tools.

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