get_balance

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

The parenthetical "read live from the chain" adds genuine behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint — it signals a network-bound, fresh read rather than a cached value. However, the description says nothing about latency, rate limits, or what happens when the wallet ID is unknown or the chain is unreachable, which are the remaining behavioral questions for a live-chain read.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the freshness qualifier appended compactly. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the definition covers enough to invoke correctly, and "ETH balance" tells the agent what comes back despite no output schema. Only minor gaps remain around units/format of the returned balance and error behavior.

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% and the single parameter walletId (GUID) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail about the identifier, so this sits at the baseline expected when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get the current ETH balance of a wallet"), which is unambiguous and readily separable from siblings like list_transactions or gas_price. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it should be preferred over, but the resource is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for checking a balance, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on prerequisites such as the wallet existing in the account, and no stated alternative for multi-asset or historical balance queries (e.g., versus list_transactions).

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