getBTCBalancesReturn native BTC balances for the user's wallet, broken out by both the taproot (P2TR) and nested segwit (P2WPKH) addresses, in BTC and sats. Does NOT include runes, ordinals/inscriptions, or Counterparty assets — use the dedicated getRuneBalances / getInscriptionsByAddress / getXCPBalances tools for those.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the address types (P2TR, P2WPKH), units (BTC and sats), and exclusions. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty wallets or authentication, but given annotation coverage, it is sufficiently transparent.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence and exclusions/alternatives in the second. There is no redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns: native BTC balances by address type in BTC and sats. It also clarifies exclusions and directs to alternatives, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because none exist. It correctly focuses on the output and scope rather than input semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ("Return") and clearly identifies the resource (native BTC balances) and scope (user's wallet, broken out by taproot and nested segwit addresses, in BTC and sats). It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly listing what it does NOT include (runes, ordinals/inscriptions, Counterparty assets) and pointing to dedicated tools for those assets.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: it states the tool returns only native BTC balances and explicitly says to use getRuneBalances / getInscriptionsByAddress / getXCPBalances for runes, inscriptions, and Counterparty assets. This clearly tells an agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.