get_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the tool performs a read operation ('Get'), but does not mention any potential side effects, network-specific behavior, or error handling. The schema covers the network default, so the description adds minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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 gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 covers the core function. The schema handles parameter semantics, and no output schema exists to elaborate on return values. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could have mentioned the network default explicitly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('address' and 'network') already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('balance of an address'), and adds the network context ('on 0G network'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (get_transaction, get_block, get_network_info, estimate_gas).

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 the tool is used to check an address balance, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no 'use this for X, not Y' guidance, so usage is merely implied from the clear purpose.

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