check_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the automatic SIWX signing, the admin key requirement for external wallets, and implies it is a read operation. No side effects are mentioned, but for a simple balance check 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?

Two concise sentences: one states the main purpose, the other adds behavioral context. No fluff, every word adds value.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description explains the authentication and resolution mechanism. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return format (e.g., structure of available and held funds).

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% for the single parameter 'wallet'. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but the context of automatic resolution is behavioral, not parameter-focused.

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 it checks the organization balance for the allowance wallet, specifically available and held funds. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like billing_history or allowance_status by focusing on balance checking, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explains that the wallet is automatically resolved over SIWX and that reading a non-linked wallet requires an admin key. This provides some usage context but does not list when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives.

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