Retrieve the NEAR balance for any account, including available, staked, and storage-locked amounts. Use it to check wallet funds and staking status.
Get the NEAR balance of an account including available, staked, and storage-locked amounts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | NEAR account ID (e.g., 'alice.near') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the composition of the returned balance (available vs staked vs storage-locked), which is real context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for nonexistent accounts, or the units returned (yoctoNEAR vs NEAR).
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 the verb and scope leading, and the return breakdown appended. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential question of what the balance consists of. It is nearly complete but omits the return unit/format, which matters for a balance tool an agent may need to format or compare.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (account_id) is documented in the schema with an example ('alice.near'), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3.
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 and resource ('Get the NEAR balance of an account') and enumerates the three balance components returned (available, staked, storage-locked). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ft_balance (fungible tokens) and get_staking_info without the agent needing to open any schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose statement — an agent can infer this is the tool for native NEAR balances — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., account must exist), and no direct routing to or away from siblings such as get_ft_balance or get_staking_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.