get_ltc_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. The description adds significant context: the indexer source, config override, format-only validation, and a note about taproot addresses being unspendable. This goes 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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core action and indexer, the second details returns and address acceptance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned (confirmed+mempool litoshis, LTC decimal projection) and mentions the indexer and config override. For a simple read-only balance tool, this is fully 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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'address', the schema already provides detailed info on address types and length. The description adds only that the read path validates format only, which is marginal. Baseline 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 the tool returns on-chain balance for a Litecoin mainnet address, specifies the indexer (litecoinspace.org), and details the return values (confirmed+mempool litoshis and LTC decimal projection). It also lists accepted address formats, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_btc_balance.

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 this tool (for LTC mainnet balance) and provides address format restrictions to guide correct usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools for other coins makes it clear.

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