netintel_wallet_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (public RPCs, no API key), supported chains, that balances come back as raw decimal strings plus formatted numbers with USD estimates, and the 10-contract cap. It omits error behavior and rate limits, but the read-only nature and output shape are clear.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and chain scope, followed by output-format and token-cap details. No wasted filler, though the em-dash clause stacks several facts into one long 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: scope, chains, output shape (raw + formatted + USD), and the token cap. Gaps around failure modes and rate limits are minor for a read-only balance lookup.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three params: address is any wallet, chain is Base/Ethereum/Solana, and tokens accepts up to 10 ERC-20 contracts (tokens=…). It adds real meaning beyond the bare string-typed schema, though it doesn't give exact accepted chain strings or the token-list format.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (wallet balances) and pins down the scope precisely: native + USDC + custom tokens across Base, Ethereum, and Solana with USD estimates. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like netintel_wallet_intel or netintel_wallet_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing signal to the sibling wallet tools (wallet_intel, wallet_status). The 'no API key' / 'public RPCs' phrasing describes a benefit rather than a usage condition, and the tokens= note is parameter mechanics, not guidance.

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