wallet-balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.010/call), free upstream services (DRPC + CoinGecko), and that no API key is needed. It does not detail return format or error handling, but for a simple read operation, this provides adequate transparency.

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?

Description is highly concise with three sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value (supported networks, optional USD, pricing and sourcing). No wasted words.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, supported chains, optional features, and cost. It omits output format or potential errors, but for a straightforward balance query, it is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some value by listing the specific supported chains (beyond the schema's 'default: ethereum') and clarifying the 'with_usd' parameter's purpose, but does not significantly exceed schema information.

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 native token balances for EVM addresses, specifies supported tokens (ETH, POL, BNB) and networks (Ethereum, Base, etc.), and mentions optional USD value. It distinguishes itself from sibling wallet tools (e.g., wallet-credit-score, wallet-screener) by focusing solely on balance retrieval.

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 useful context (free, no API key required) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify when not to use it or mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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