getERC20Balance

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. The readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already communicate the safety profile, but the description doesn't mention return format, potential errors, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering the key safety trait, the minimal description is acceptable but leaves room for added context.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., balance in wei or a number). It only says it gets a balance, leaving the return format ambiguous. Given the simplicity of the tool, a brief mention of the return value would complete the description.

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 schema documents authToken and walletAddress with descriptions, and chainName is constrained to 'somnia' via a const, making it self-explanatory. The description adds nothing beyond the phrase 'of a wallet,' which is redundant with the walletAddress parameter description, but the schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'ERC20 tokens balance of a wallet,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from NFT and ERC1155 balance tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'getTokenBalance' which may also be relevant for general token balances.

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 doesn't mention that this is specifically for ERC20 tokens and that other standards (ERC721, ERC1155) require different tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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