get_token_balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (listing balances), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or require any special permissions. It also does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when parameters are omitted beyond default values.

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 concise sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and includes key constraints (XIAN address, pagination). Every word is meaningful.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., array of objects with token contract address and balance) or any limitations (e.g., maximum page size). The addition of pagination details in the description helps, but users still lack clarity on the response structure.

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%: all four parameters have descriptions. The description adds 'for a XIAN address' and 'pagination support', but these are already implied by the schema. The description does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all token balances for a XIAN address with pagination support'. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (token balances for an address), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_balance' (single balance) and 'get_token_data_by_contract'.

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. For example, it does not indicate that for a single token balance one should use 'get_balance' instead, or that this tool is for all tokens. No exclusions or context are given.

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