ab_get_balance

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation, no gas spent; safe to run frequently.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations: ENS name resolution capability, human-readable return format, and safety for frequent use. No contradiction 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (CAPABILITIES, EXAMPLES, RETURNS, SECURITY), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently communicates essential information in a compact format.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is highly complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, return format, and security. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or rate limit details, but annotations and context provide sufficient coverage for effective 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining parameter usage through examples: address accepts ENS names, tokenSymbol uses a lookup table, and tokenAddress is for direct contract specification. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 specific action ('Fetch the current on-chain balance') and resource ('for a wallet'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_wallet, deploy_token, generate_wallet, and transfer_token which involve creation, deployment, or transfer operations rather than querying existing 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for fetching wallet balances (native ETH or ERC-20 tokens) and when to use specific parameters (tokenAddress vs tokenSymbol). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on read-only balance queries rather than write operations like creation or transfers.

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