address_balance_get

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

Describes that the balance is computed 'by summing all its deltas', which adds transparency beyond a simple get. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose read-only nature or potential side effects. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence explains what it does, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 tool with low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage context. However, it does not mention error handling, return format (expected number), or address validation, leaving some gaps for 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?

The description does not add any detail beyond the schema for the single parameter 'address'. It does not specify expected format (e.g., legacy, bech32) or validation rules. The 0% schema description coverage means the description carries full burden, but it provides no extra semantic information.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'total Bitcoin balance of an address' in satoshis, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'Use this when you only need the balance information without the full address details.'

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?

Provides clear context for when to use ('only need the balance information'), but does not explicitly specify when not to use or list alternative tool names. The sibling differentiation is implied.

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