solana_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 indicates a read operation but does not state whether the balance is returned in lamports or SOL, what happens for invalid addresses, or whether network selection is required. This lack of detail could lead to incorrect interpretation of results.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and immediately conveys the essential information, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one well-covered parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate for basic selection but omits important context such as the unit of the returned balance (lamports vs SOL) and any error behavior. Given the low complexity, a 3 reflects a minimum viable description with clear gaps.

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%: the only parameter 'address' is described as 'Solana account address'. The description does not add any new meaning beyond restating the schema's description, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 SOL balance for a Solana address' uses a specific verb (Get), identifies the exact resource (SOL balance), and scopes it to a Solana address. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like solana_get_spl_token_balances (which handles token balances) and other chain balance tools.

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 such as solana_get_account_info, solana_get_spl_token_balances, or balance tools for other chains. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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