check-balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when a wallet is not found. It only states the basic action without behavioral specifics.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and contains no wasted words. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple sibling tools, the description lacks details about return values, error handling, and the testnet/mainnet distinction. It does not fully equip an agent to understand the tool's usage comprehensively.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds context about the high-level modes (existing wallet vs. direct data) that maps to walletData and walletName, but does not add significant detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool checks the balance of a wallet for RBTC or ERC20 tokens on the Rootstock blockchain. It specifies the target resource (wallet balance) and action (check), and mentions two modes of operation (existing wallet file or direct wallet data), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check-transaction.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check-transaction). It explains how to use it (wallet file or direct data) but not the context or prerequisites for usage. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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