multichain_balance

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: rate limits, environment variable for quota increase, and the gas-tracker concept for 'all' chain. It does not detail error handling or response format, but for a read-only 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 efficient sentences: first encapsulates the core function, second adds essential usage limits. No redundant or verbose phrasing. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should clarify expected return format (e.g., map of chain→balance). It only mentions 'Native balance', leaving the agent to guess the structure. Also missing error cases or prerequisites beyond the key.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it contextualizes 'all' as gas-tracker but does not elaborate on input format or constraints. It repeats schema info without significant enrichment.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving native balance for one address across 5 EVM chains in a single call. It lists specific chains and mentions the 'all' option for gas-tracker, distinguishing it clearly from unrelated sibling tools.

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 provides usage limits (20 calls/day/IP, upgradeable via ALLY_KEY) which guides the agent on rate constraints. It does not explicitly mention when to use versus alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion arises.

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