get_balance_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers a genuinely non-obvious trait: the address field is only populated once status is 'active'. It does not mention auth requirements or whether the wallet must be created first, but the conditional-field disclosure is the key quirk an agent needs.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the important conditional (address only present when active) is front-loaded right after the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return-shape information; it does so for the critical address field, which is the one an agent would otherwise misread. It could say more about the status values, but for a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete.

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 single 'network' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its default of polygon and enum values. The description adds only the vague phrase 'on one network', so the schema is doing the heavy lifting; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (deposit wallet that tops up your balance) scoped to one network, which separates it from create_balance_wallet and get_balance. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as get_balance, list_balance_activity, or create_balance_wallet. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is the read counterpart to create_balance_wallet.

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