check_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. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Check') and hints at a prerequisite for analyses, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap, scoring 3 as it provides basic behavioral context but misses key operational details.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds crucial usage context. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., balance format, units) and doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error handling. For a balance-checking tool, this is adequate but leaves some gaps, scoring 3.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional value is required or provided beyond the schema.

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: 'Check your LightningProx balance in sats.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('LightningProx balance'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on balance rather than market analysis or opportunities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical similar tools like 'get_balance' or 'view_balance', keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Required to pay for LPXPoly analyses.' This implies it should be used before or during payment-related operations for analyses. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for a 4.

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