getERC1155Balance

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide—no mention of pagination, balance formatting, whether zero balances are included, or any edge cases.

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 a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb 'Returns'. It is perfectly concise and free of unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is a simple tool with no output schema, so the description must clarify the return shape. 'List of ERC-1155 token balances' is vague—it does not specify whether each item includes token address, token ID, balance amount, or metadata. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the response structure.

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 67% (authToken and walletAddress have descriptions; chainName has a const but no prose description). The tool description contributes no parameter information, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions for the two key parameters. The description does not add value 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 'Returns a list of ERC-1155 token balances' uses a specific verb (Returns), identifies the resource (ERC-1155 token balances), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like getERC20Balance and getERC721Balance by specifying the token standard.

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 token standard (ERC-1155) in the description implies when to use this tool vs. alternatives, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for other token types. The context is implied rather than stated.

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