get_wrapped_native_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the return value concept (wrapped native token balance) and the examples clarify the token types, which is reasonable for a read-only getter. However, it does not mention details like whether the balance is returned in raw units or formatted, or the default network behavior (though the schema fills some gaps).

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without wasting words, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 balance-checking tool with no output schema, the description is adequate for selection but not fully complete. It does not explicitly mention return format or behavior on unsupported networks, but given the schema covers parameter defaults and the tool is straightforward, the description is minimally sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic context by listing examples of wrapped native tokens, which helps interpret the address parameter, but it does not meaningfully extend beyond what the schema already provides for the network parameter.

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: getting the wrapped native token balance for an address. It includes concrete examples (WETH, WBNB, WMATIC) and the resource is specific, distinguishing it from siblings like get_native_balance or get_erc20_balance.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing a wrapped native token balance, not regular native or arbitrary ERC20), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The distinction from sibling tools is inferred from the name and examples rather than stated.

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