albyhub_get_balances

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation is a read ('Fetch'), describes what is included (on-chain + lightning), and mentions a specific error case (404) with a workaround. While it doesn't cover authentication or response format, it provides meaningful operational context beyond the bare action.

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 three concise sentences: first states the core function, second differentiates from a sibling tool, third offers a troubleshooting path. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential context: what it fetches, the scope (hub-wide), the difference from a similar tool, and what to do if it fails. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully describes the interface, and the description need not explain parameter details. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 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 'Fetch' with a clear resource 'hub balances' and even names the endpoint 'GET /api/balances'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from nwc_get_balance, making the tool's purpose immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 explicitly names an alternative (nwc_get_balance) and explains when to use which: this tool for hub-wide aggregate, that one for a single sub-wallet. It also provides conditional guidance for 404 errors, suggesting albyhub_proxy_request as a fallback, which helps the agent decide between tools.

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