get_token_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only offers a single action statement. It doesn't mention default network, error behavior, return format, or any side effects (though none expected). The schema provides some parameter details, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 information. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, though it is arguably too brief for the tool's complexity.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must be more informative. It lacks any mention of supported networks, how the token address is interpreted, or what the response contains. This leaves a critical gap for correct invocation, especially given the large number of similar sibling tools.

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 comprehensively describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the network default and accepted values. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it doesn't clarify any parameter relationships or edge cases.

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 action (get) and target (token balance), but it does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools such as get_erc20_balance, get_native_balance, or chain-specific balance tools. It is accurate but lacks scope details like supported networks or token standards.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions. There is no mention of which chains it supports or how it compares to similar balance tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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