Check balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a cost of $0.01 USDG and notes it works for any address, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether it's a read-only operation (though obvious), how invalid addresses are handled, or any other side effects, so it's only partially transparent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and cost, with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose, cost, and address scope. It lacks return format details, but the tool's simplicity makes this less critical. Could benefit from a brief note on expected output, but the essentials are present.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description's mention of 'any Robinhood Chain address' adds semantic context to the 'address' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly map the parameter to its meaning beyond that, and the schema pattern already dictates the format. Minimal compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states exactly what the tool does: checks ETH and USDG balance for any Robinhood Chain address. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'wallet' by specifying the asset types and address scope.

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 usage is implied—you'd use this tool to check a balance—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like 'wallet' or 'tx'. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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