get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the default behavior (using the user's address if none specified), which is useful context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., balance in KAS).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get balance for a Kaspa address') and adds the default behavior. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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 (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to disclose key behavioral aspects like read/write nature or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's understanding of how to interpret results.

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%, with the parameter 'address' fully documented in the schema as optional and defaulting to the user's address. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, merely restating the default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'balance for a Kaspa address', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_my_address' by focusing on balance retrieval rather than address generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_transaction' which might also involve address-related queries.

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 by stating 'defaults to your wallet address', suggesting this tool is for checking balances of either specified addresses or the user's own. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_my_address' for address retrieval or 'send_kaspa' for transactions, leaving some ambiguity.

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