nwc_get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It clearly indicates a read-only-ish action ('Return') but does not discuss safety, side effects, errors, or prerequisites beyond mentioning a 'connected wallet'. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information. No wasted words, and the key details (action, resource, unit) are all present.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what is returned and in what units. It could optionally mention error behavior, but the description is complete enough for a basic balance query.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by specifying the return unit ('satoshis'), which is not present in the empty schema. No further parameter detail is possible or needed.

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 specifies a clear action ('Return') and a distinct resource ('current spendable balance of the connected wallet') with units ('satoshis'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on invoices, payments, and wallet info.

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool (when a balance is needed), but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as whether nwc_get_info might also provide balance. Without sibling differentiation, it lacks clear usage guidance beyond obviousness.

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