Wallet Balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful detail like 'with UTXO binding info' and the 'in one call' behavior, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, error handling, rate limits, or any side effects (though it is clearly read-only). The description is not contradictory, but it leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key differentiator ('in one call'). There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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?

While an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not explain how the combined data is structured, how pagination applies across the different asset types, or what happens when an address has no stamps or tokens. It also omits prerequisites or error conditions. For a tool combining multiple data sources, this is too sparse to fully guide an agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only implicitly references 'address' via 'Bitcoin address' but gives no guidance on the 'page' and 'limit' parameters, their defaults, or their purpose (pagination). The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function: a combined view of a Bitcoin address returning BTC balance, stamps with UTXO binding info, and SRC-20 balances in one call. The verb 'view' and specific resource and data types distinguish it from sibling tools like wallet_stamps or src20_balance, which focus on a single asset class.

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 when to use it (when you need all three data types together) via 'combined view' and 'in one call', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer a more specific tool for only one asset type, leaving the choice to inference.

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