check_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (USDC and SOL balances) and their purpose (for AI requests), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency for a financial tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return context, which is adequate for a simple read operation. However, as a financial tool, it lacks details on authentication, data freshness, or error cases, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'wallet'. The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond implying balance checking, but with 0 required parameters and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. The description's focus on output compensates slightly.

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 specific action ('Check'), resource ('SolanaProx balance'), and scope ('current'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'estimate_cost' or 'list_models'. It specifies what is returned ('available USDC and SOL balance'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 usage when needing to check balances for AI requests, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'estimate_cost' for cost estimation or 'ask_ai' for making requests. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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