get_ltc_balance

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the data source (Esplora indexer), the output details (confirmed+mempool litoshis, LTC decimal), and the fact that format validation is the only check. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so the description enhances transparency without contradiction.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and source, second details output, third notes address formats and limitations. No extraneous information, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 balance retrieval with one parameter, the description is fairly complete. It could explicitly mention the return JSON structure (field names), but the lack of an output schema means the agent must infer. Still, it provides necessary context for invoking the tool correctly.

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 100% description coverage for the address parameter, detailing format and limitations. The tool description does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns the on-chain balance for a Litecoin mainnet address, specifying the data source (Esplora indexer) and output components (confirmed+mempool litoshis, LTC decimal). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Litecoin and listing specific address formats, and notes limitations (mainnet only, no testnet/MWEB).

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 implicitly tells when to use: for getting Litecoin balance, and it notes that the read path only validates format, so it does not confirm address usage. However, it does not explicitly compare to other get_ltc_* tools or provide alternative scenarios, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_ltc_blocks_recent) makes it clear this is for balances.

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