Get the AVAX balance of one or more P-Chain addresses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | Avalanche network to query (default: mainnet) | |
| addresses | Yes | List of P-Chain addresses to query (e.g. P-avax1...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the operation ('Get balance') without disclosing behavior such as default network handling, error scenarios, pagination, or whether it accepts only P-addresses. The mainnet default is only visible in the schema, not the description.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explain the return format (e.g., units, decimal precision, or how balances are aggregated) which would be valuable for a balance query without an output schema. It is decent but slightly incomplete.
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 coverage is 100%, with both 'network' and 'addresses' already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that addresses are for the P-Chain, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 the specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource ('AVAX balance of one or more P-Chain addresses'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling platform_* tools that query validators, staking, or subnets, and from blockchain_get_native_balance which likely targets a different chain.
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 usage context by specifying 'P-Chain addresses', which suggests this tool is for P-Chain balance queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like blockchain_get_native_balance, nor does it mention any exclusions or edge cases.
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.
Many tools are redundant due to compatibility aliases (avalanche_docs_* vs docs_*, blockchain_get_* vs onchain_lookup) and overlapping functionality (chain_stats vs onchain_query, onchain_activity vs onchain_query ops, acp_list vs info_acps). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool when multiple appear to serve the same purpose, despite descriptions clarifying aliases.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use noun_verb (acp_list, docs_fetch), some use verb_noun (build_plan), and others use prefixes like platform_get_, info_get_, and onchain_. The mix of styles (snake_case, noun phrases, verb phrases) makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 48 tools, the count is high and inflated by compatibility aliases and granular platform_get_* wrappers. The scope spans multiple domains (docs, on-chain, platform API, ACPs, console), which could be better modularized. Many tools are trivial variants (e.g., platform_get_block vs platform_get_block_by_height) adding unnecessary bulk.
The server provides thorough read-only coverage for Avalanche: docs search, ACP management, on-chain lookups, indexed stats, platform API getters, and console flow guidance. While there is no transaction submission (likely intentional), the surface covers most queries a developer would need, with minor gaps like detailed token transfer history.
