web3_blockchain_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'simulated' balances, hinting at non-real data, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. More transparency could improve agent decision-making.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key details. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 query tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs (wallet address, network) and output (balances). However, it could briefly mention that the tool is read-only and safe to use, especially given no annotations. Still, it is largely complete.

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 both parameters are documented. The description restates the network enum and wallet address but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does provide output context (returns balances) which is not param-related, but that doesn't enhance param semantics.

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 action: 'Inspects an on-chain wallet address' and specifies the supported networks 'Ethereum, Solana'. It also mentions the return value 'simulated native + token balances'. This is specific and distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tool.

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 what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Since only one sibling exists and it's unrelated, the lack of usage context is less critical, but still a gap.

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