cpu_get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that a configured wallet is required but no session needed. For a read-only operation, it provides sufficient behavioral context, including the return format (human-readable decimals).

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 with no fluff. The first sentence explains what the tool shows and its format; the second adds usage guidance and requirements. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the output (balance in human-readable decimal), its purpose (before paid actions), and prerequisites (configured wallet, no session needed). No gaps.

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 input schema has no parameters (0% param count, 100% coverage trivially). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info as there are none.

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 shows the wallet's spendable funds (CPU and gas balance) and explains what CPU is used for. The verb 'show' and resource 'wallet's spendable funds' are specific, and it naturally distinguishes from sibling action tools like cpu_build or cpu_swap.

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 explicit guidance: 'Check this before paid actions to avoid failed or stranded payments.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools are for transactions.

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