get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation and specifies input (chain, address). However, it omits details like whether it returns all tokens or only major ones, error handling, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without extraneous 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?

For a simple balance retrieval tool, the description covers the essential context: action, resource, and supported chains. It does not specify output format or behavior for invalid inputs, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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%, so the parameters 'chain' (enum) and 'address' are already well-documented with descriptions. The description adds the high-level context of 'native and token balances', but does not provide additional detail beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 action ('Get balances'), the resource ('wallet'), and scope ('native and token', 'on Celo, Base, or Stacks'). It distinguishes from siblings like deploy_token (deployment) and get_prices (price data), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when needing wallet balances on supported chains), but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings like get_portfolio, which may also show balances. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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