get_token_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the tool is safe to call repeatedly. The description adds behavioral details about return fields (amount, decimals, symbol, USD value) and chain-specific balance types (TronBalance, SolanaBalance). This adds value beyond annotations.

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 detailed but well-structured: general purpose first sentence, then chain-specific instructions. It is front-loaded and logically organized. Could be slightly more concise, but the information density justifies the length.

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?

The description covers all chains in the enum (ethereum, tron, solana) with specific wallet/token formats. Since there is no output schema, it explains return fields (amount, decimals, symbol, USD value) and balance types. For a multi-chain balance tool, this is comprehensive and leaves no major 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 0% parameter descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: wallet (address format hinted), token ('native' or contract address), chain (optional, default ethereum). It provides concrete examples (e.g., 'Pass `token: "native"` for ETH') and chain-specific formats, making the meaning clear.

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 fetches a wallet's balance for any ERC-20 token or native coin, and distinguishes between Ethereum, TRON, and Solana chains with specific instructions. It provides a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('wallet's balance'), making purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context for different chains (e.g., 'For TRON, pass chain: "tron"' and gives wallet/token format details). It implies when to use this over other tools (e.g., for balance queries), but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, this is a minor gap.

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