litecoin_get_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get balance,' omitting whether the balance is confirmed/unconfirmed, the unit (LTC vs satoshi), or any potential delays or errors. This is a significant gap for a minimal description.

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 extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 lookup, the description is adequate but incomplete. With no output schema, it fails to specify the return format or units (e.g., satoshis vs LTC), leaving some ambiguity. It is minimally viable but lacks clarity on the response.

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%, with the 'address' parameter described as 'Litecoin address to check.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Get balance for a Litecoin address' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like litecoin_get_transaction_history, litecoin_validate_address, and litecoin_get_network_info. It precisely states what the tool does.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or to prefer it over other chain-specific balance tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name.

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