address_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cost and a free tier but fails to describe what the tool returns, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The API endpoint is given but without behavioral context.

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 very short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. However, the inclusion of pricing and a full API URL may be excessive for the description's primary function. It is concise but could be better structured to separate usage guidance from metadata.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, possible errors, or chain format expectations. The free tier note is helpful but not sufficient for complete understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only includes pricing information unrelated to parameters. Note a contradiction: the schema marks 'chain' as required, but the parameter description in the schema says '可选' (optional), which may confuse agents.

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 that the tool performs a balance query for blockchain addresses ('余额查询'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like address_risk or address_txs, though the name and brief description imply the purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes pricing and an API endpoint but does not explain appropriate contexts or prerequisites. An agent would have no basis to choose this over other blockchain tools.

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