vealth

What a Regen address holds right now

regen_address_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Live balance, bonded stake, unclaimed staking rewards, and REGEN locked in open governance deposits for any regen1… address — read directly from Regen's own public LCD API (the same one Vealth's browser explorer hits; no Vealth backend caches or alters it). Any figure that cannot be read answers so honestly rather than defaulting to zero, and the total is withheld until every figure is known. Free, keyless, read-only — this never asks for a private key, only the address. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	A regen1… bech32 address (not a 0x… Base address — Regen is a separate Cosmos chain).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`tool`	No
`funded`	No
`payUsd`	No
`workId`	No
`claimId`	No
`claimable`	No
`next_call`	No
`proofRule`	No
`fulfillableBy`	No
`definitionOfDone`	No
`needs_from_caller`	No
`notClaimableReason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / claimable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / notClaimableReason
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "claimId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "definitionOfDone": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "array",
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "fulfillableBy": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "funded": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "needs_from_caller": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "next_call": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payUsd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "proofRule": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "workId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: data comes straight from Regen's public LCD with no Vealth caching or alteration, unreadable figures surface as such rather than defaulting to zero, and the total is withheld until all components resolve. That 'partial data' contract is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The payload and source are well front-loaded, but the final sentence ('Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign') repeats the earlier 'Free, keyless, read-only' clause almost verbatim. Redundant phrasing dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be spelled out, and the description covers source, partial-data behavior, cost, and credential requirements. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only the missing sibling-routing guidance as a real gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the address format (regen1… bech32, not 0x…). The description restates the address scope but adds no format, validation, or example detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (a Regen account's holdings) and enumerates exactly what it returns: liquid balance, bonded stake, unclaimed rewards, and governance deposits. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like regen_governance_status or regen_token_volume, which cover adjacent but different data.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description scopes usage to 'any regen1… address' and implicitly positions the tool for point-in-time account inspection, but it never says when to prefer it over siblings or what conditions make it the wrong choice. The agent must infer the routing decision.

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

All vealth 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?