Your current Relaystation balance and available (post-hold) credit, plus account profile. Read-only, FREE. Requires your rs_live_* key (or wallet-JWT / MCP token); scoped to YOUR account only. Example: balance {}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, free usage, and authentication requirement. Could mention error behavior, but current details are adequate.
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?
Two sentences and an example; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose, concise and efficient.
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?
No output schema, but description mentions balance, credit, and profile. Could be more specific about profile fields, but adequate for a simple read-only tool.
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 has 0 parameters, baseline is 4. Description adds value by explaining the empty input via example 'balance {}' and clarifying no arguments needed.
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 it returns balance, available credit, and account profile. It uses specific nouns and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_contract or mint_token.
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 clear context: read-only, free, requires specific key, and scoped to own account. Includes an example. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is sufficient.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource, such as baton operations, agent messaging, contracts, and account management. There is no overlap in functionality, making it clear which tool to use for each task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., append_to_baton, create_baton, message_agent). The verbs are descriptive and uniform, aiding predictability.
With 14 tools, the server covers its domain (agent coordination, batons, contracts, tool discovery) without being overbearing. The count is well-scoped for a platform offering a variety of operations.
The tool set covers core operations like creating, reading, and appending to batons, as well as messaging and contracts. However, it lacks list or delete operations for batons and contracts, which are notable gaps for a complete lifecycle.