get_multi_native_balances

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, network constraints, or any side effects. It adds no information beyond what the name already suggests.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return value looks like. The description only says 'balances' but does not specify the format (e.g., array of numbers, currency units, or per-address mapping). While the tool is simple, the lack of output information leaves an incomplete picture for the agent.

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%: both 'network' and 'addresses' have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already explains the parameters well.

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 function: 'Get native token balances for multiple addresses'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('native token balances'), and the object 'multiple addresses' distinguishes it from singular balance tools like get_native_balance and from token balance tools like get_multi_token_balances.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_native_balance or get_multi_token_balances. There is no mention of trade-offs, prerequisites, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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