Realtap

Programmable tokens held by a wallet

get_programmable_balances

Read-onlyIdempotent

The programmable tokens (CIP-113) a wallet holds. They are NOT at the wallet's own addresses: they sit under the standard's shared contract, owned by a credential, so get_wallet does not show them. Give an addr1… payment address, a stake1… stake address or a 56-hex owner credential; for a wallet address we look up its payment key and its stake key (the owner can be either). Each holding comes with the token's restrictions in plain words, whether the owner is on the token's block list, and a value when the token has a pool price (most do not).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "get_programmable_balances"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	addr1… payment address (including a smart-wallet address), stake1… stake address, or a 56-hex owner credential.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the shared-contract ownership model, the payment-key/stake-key resolution for wallet addresses ('the owner can be either'), and the shape of each holding (restrictions in plain words, block-list status, price when a pool price exists). This is real behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core definition, then the disambiguation caveat, then input formats, then return contents. Sentences are dense and mostly earn their place, though the second sentence is long and could be tightened slightly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so (restrictions, block-list flag, optional price). Combined with accepted inputs and the get_wallet caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single, well-documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning the schema does not convey — that for a wallet address the tool resolves the payment and stake keys and the owner may be either — improving clarity on which addresses map to what.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('the programmable tokens (CIP-113) a wallet holds') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_wallet by explaining that these tokens sit under a shared contract rather than the wallet's addresses. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for when to use it (when you need CIP-113 tokens that get_wallet does not show) and enumerates the accepted input forms with the lookup behavior for a wallet address. It names get_wallet as the alternative that won't work, but does not mention sibling get_programmable_token (single-token lookup) or list_programmable_events as related options.

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

All Realtap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?