get_multi_chain_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool queries balances across networks and includes a price ('Price: $0.50'), which adds some context. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). The description is minimal beyond the basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured clearly, and the 'Price' note is concise. There's minimal waste, though the formatting could be slightly more polished (e.g., bullet points). Overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, returns, and price, but lacks behavioral context like permissions or limitations. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more operational guidance to fully inform the agent.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'wallet_address' as 'The wallet address to check (0x...)', 'chains' as 'List of chains to query. Defaults to all supported chains.', and 'include_tokens' as 'Whether to include ERC-20 token balances.' This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't specify chain identifiers or token details, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Get multi-chain wallet balance across 7+ EVM networks.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('wallet balance'), and scope ('across 7+ EVM networks'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wallet_risk_score' or 'track_portfolio', which might also involve wallet data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Defaults to all supported chains' for the 'chains' parameter, but this is parameter-specific and doesn't address tool-level usage. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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