Get wallet balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default wallet behavior when walletAddress is omitted, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose return format, units (e.g., lamports vs SOL), error handling, or any side effects, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and includes the essential default-behavior caveat in a separate sentence, making it easy to parse.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main function and the default wallet behavior. However, it doesn't describe the return value structure (e.g., whether both balances are returned together, or their units), which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 both parameters described in detail, including the default behavior for walletAddress. The description primarily paraphrases this information, adding no new semantic content beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't clarify parameter constraints or value formats beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Get the SOL balance (and optionally an SPL token balance) for a wallet address.' This clearly identifies the verb (Get), resource (balance), and scope (wallet address). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_token_overview or get_jupiter_quote, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage is implied by the tool name and description. The only usage guidance provided is the default wallet behavior when walletAddress is omitted ('defaults to the server's configured trading wallet when trading is enabled'), which helps with invocation but not tool selection among siblings.

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