ton_get_balance

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, units, or testnet default behavior. It is acceptable but minimal for a simple read tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema, and the description does not mention what the return value looks like (e.g., balance in TON, raw integer, or an object with additional fields). It is adequate for a basic balance check but incomplete in setting expectations for the response and network behavior.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both 'address' and 'testnet' having their own descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'balance for a TON address', clearly stating what the tool does and distinguishing it from other TON tools like ton_send_transaction or ton_get_transaction_history. It is unambiguous and chain-specific.

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. It does not mention related balance tools for other chains or TON-specific tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. There is zero usage guidance.

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