Venice x402 Wallet Balance

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: API key auth is rejected and the wallet must match the SIWX-authenticated identity. It does not describe response shape or error behavior, but the auth constraint is the key disclosure.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the auth constraint and identity-match requirement front-loaded as the operative caveats.

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?

For a single-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth mode, and identity matching. It could briefly note the returned balance unit/format, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single path parameter. It specifies the accepted address families (EVM or Solana) and the identity-match constraint, adding real meaning beyond the bare pattern in 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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (prepaid x402 credit balance) scoped to EVM or Solana wallet addresses. This clearly separates it from sibling billing/x402 tools like venice_billing_balance and venice_x402_transactions.

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?

Explicitly declares SIWX-ONLY usage and that API key auth is rejected, plus the constraint that the path wallet must match the SIWX-authenticated wallet. It does not name a sibling alternative for API-key callers (e.g., venice_billing_balance), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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