verify_balance

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 adds useful context by mentioning Merkle proof and ECDSA signature, and states that it returns 'cryptographically verified balance data.' However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any error conditions, or side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what it does, the second clarifies the return type. No wasted text.

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, no annotations), the description is mostly complete but leaves gaps. It does not mention the chain parameter, default behavior, or any edge cases. The claim of returning 'verified balance data' is helpful but lacks specifics about response structure or error handling.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (address has a description, chain does not). The description does not compensate for the chain parameter's lack of meaning, nor does it explain the address format beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'balance' but not the parameters explicitly, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Verify any blockchain address balance with Merkle proof and ECDSA signature.' It names a specific verb (verify), a clear resource (blockchain address balance), and adds cryptographic details (Merkle proof, ECDSA signature) that differentiate it from siblings like verify_contract or verify_signature.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Verify any blockchain address balance') but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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