get_token_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing return fields (amount, decimals, symbol, USD value) and chain-specific output structures (TronBalance, SolanaBalance), beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds essential chain-specific details.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, which it does comprehensively. It covers all supported chains, token types, and parameter variations, leaving no significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: wallet chain compatibility, token as 'native' or contract address, chain enum with default. It adds meaning beyond the schema patterns.

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 opens with a clear verb 'Fetch' and resource 'wallet's balance of any ERC-20 token or the chain's native coin.' It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_btc_balance by covering multiple chains and token types.

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 clear usage context: when to use for native coins vs. token contracts, and chain-specific instructions for TRON and Solana. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements but effectively guides selection.

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