get_multi_token_balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden but only discloses that it is a single-call batch operation. It does not mention that it is read-only, how invalid token addresses are handled, or what the return structure looks like, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and key differentiator.

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 read-only balance tool with a complete schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks mention of the return format and does not differentiate from related multi-balance tools like get_multi_native_balances. No output schema exists to compensate, but the schema details parameters well.

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 description adds no additional parameter semantics. It does not clarify the format of balances or token lists beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get', identifies the resource 'balances of multiple tokens for an address', and adds the differentiating phrase 'in a single call'. This clearly distinguishes it from single-balance tools like get_token_balance and from get_multi_native_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?

The phrase 'in a single call' implies the tool is for efficient batch balance queries, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for native balances or when network-specific tools are needed.

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