Get full account details for a Klever blockchain address including nonce, balance, frozen balance, allowance, and permissions. Use this when you need comprehensive account state beyond just the balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Klever address (klv1... bech32 format). | |
| network | No | Network to query. Options: "mainnet", "testnet", "devnet", "local". Defaults to server default (mainnet). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds context about the returned account state (nonce, balance, frozen balance, allowance, permissions), which is the core behavioral output. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior like invalid addresses or network defaults beyond the schema, so a moderate score is appropriate.
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 two sentences, directly stating the purpose and usage guidance without redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned fields (nonce, balance, frozen balance, allowance, permissions), the address resource, and usage context. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, so the description is complete for selecting and invoking this 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?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters, covering address format (klv1... bech32) and network options/default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond a high-level scope, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full account details for a Klever blockchain address') and explicitly lists the contained fields (nonce, balance, frozen balance, allowance, permissions). It also distinguishes from the sibling get_balance by stating 'beyond just the balance.'
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 provides an explicit usage scenario: 'Use this when you need comprehensive account state beyond just the balance.' This implies when a simple balance is needed, another tool (e.g., get_balance) would be used, although no alternative is explicitly named.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as get_balance for token balances, analyze_contract for code analysis, and init_klever_project for project scaffolding. However, there is some overlap between query_context and search_documentation, both of which search the knowledge base, which could cause confusion about which to use for specific queries.
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as get_balance, analyze_contract, and init_klever_project. Minor deviations exist, like add_helper_scripts (verb_adjective_noun) and enhance_with_context (verb_preposition_noun), but overall, the pattern is clear and predictable.
With 16 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for the Klever VM domain, which covers blockchain queries, smart contract development, and knowledge base management. It provides comprehensive coverage without being overwhelmingly large, though it could be streamlined by merging overlapping tools.
The tool set offers complete coverage for Klever VM development, including project setup (init_klever_project, add_helper_scripts), contract analysis and querying (analyze_contract, query_sc), blockchain data retrieval (get_balance, get_transaction, get_block), and knowledge base access (query_context, search_documentation). No obvious gaps are present for the intended scope.
