Get Arcadia points balance for a specific wallet address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet_address | Yes | Wallet address to get points for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +{}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of rate limits, caching, or behavior for unknown/unregistered wallet addresses.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the resource and scope come first. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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?
With one fully documented parameter and an output schema covering return values, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It leaves gaps around what a missing/zero balance looks like and how this relates to the leaderboard tool, but nothing critical is missing.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Wallet address to get points for'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates 'for a specific wallet address' and adds no format or validation detail (e.g. address format, chain).
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Arcadia points balance') scoped to a specific wallet address, which is enough to distinguish it from most siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar read_point_leaderboard tool, keeping it below a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as read_point_leaderboard, nor any preconditions or exclusions. It is purely a statement of function; usage must be inferred from the name.
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.