Get Token Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by detailing the output: raw balance, formatted balance, decimals, and token metadata (if available), and mentions direct smart contract querying. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence contributes value. No redundant 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects for a read-only token balance tool. It explains input requirements and output structure, making it complete for an agent to use.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that the 'address' parameter can be a VNS name (pattern \.vet$), which is not fully captured in the schema pattern description. Also states that tokenAddress is the contract address and queries the smart contract directly.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'balance of VIP-180/ERC-20 token for a wallet address'. It differentiates from most sibling tools which focus on other domains (discourse, contracts, etc.), but does not explicitly distinguish from token-related siblings like getTokenFiatPrice or getTokenRegistry.

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?

States the prerequisite 'Requires the token contract address', but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly scoped.

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