wdk_get_asset_balance

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool returns settled, future, spendable, and off-chain amounts, which provides insight into the response structure. It does not mention authorization or side effects, but for a balance query, this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then stating the return types. 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 no output schema, the description explains the return data (settled, future, spendable, off-chain amounts), which covers the expected information for a balance tool. It does not mention error cases or edge conditions, but for a simple retrieval it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the sole parameter 'asset_id'. The description adds minimal value by restating 'RGB asset ID' and providing an example, which is helpful but does not go beyond what the schema already conveys. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('balance of a specific RGB asset') with an example of asset IDs. It clearly indicates what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like wdk_get_balances (which likely returns all balances) and wdk_send_asset (which sends assets).

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 the tool is for querying balance of a single asset by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., wdk_get_balances) or provide conditions for use. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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