get_erc20_balance

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, that a private key is required (which is unusual for a balance check), or that the private key is not stored. The only behavioral detail about the private key is in the schema parameter description, but the tool description itself is silent.

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 concise sentence with no redundant wording. It gets straight to the point, but its brevity means it omits important contextual details that other dimensions capture.

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 balance-checking tool, the description is minimal. It lacks mention of supported networks (the schema's default is BSC), the reason a privateKey is required, and any return value details. The lack of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description, which it does not meet.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already contains, so it only meets the baseline expected for high 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'ERC20 token balance for an address,' which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_token_balance or get_native_balance, so it lacks differentiation.

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 no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as network specification or the need for a private key. There are no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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