Get Agent EOA Balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read operation and that WalletConnect pairing is not needed, but it omits auth requirements, whether the raw profile must exist locally, rate limits, and error behavior. Adequate but not rich for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action and following with the pairing constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only balance query with no output schema, the description conveys what is being fetched (native or ERC-20 balance) at a sufficient level. It could say more about the return shape or default-chain behavior, but with full schema coverage of the inputs, the definition is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with chain, token, walletId, and profileId all documented in the schema itself (including the agent-eoa alias rule and Base default). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Read) and resource (native or ERC-20 balance) scoped to a 'raw local agent EOA profile', which is a meaningful qualifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_portfolio_balances, veil_get_balances, or veil_x402_payer_balances that also report balances, so it stops short of a 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 line 'Does not require WalletConnect pairing' implies when this tool is applicable (raw/local profiles without a paired session), which is a useful contextual signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to any of the several sibling balance tools.

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