liquid_get_asset_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds the behavioral detail that the result is in the asset's smallest unit, but it does not disclose error behavior, side effects, or any required permissions. 'Get' implies read-only, but that is not explicit.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes all necessary details without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, and output unit. It does not specify the return type (number vs. string) or error handling, but given the simplicity, it is fairly complete. A higher score would require more detail on edge cases.

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 schema fully describes asset_id as a 64-character hex string. The description adds context by giving an example (USDt-Liquid) and explaining the unit of the result, which is beyond the schema. This extra meaning justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 gets the balance of a specific Liquid asset by its asset ID, with the result in smallest units. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like liquid_get_balance and liquid_get_address.

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 implies usage for querying a specific asset's balance, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use liquid_get_balance for BTC'). No when-to-use guidance beyond the clear purpose.

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