Retrieve native token holdings for any terra1... address, returning raw base-unit strings to preserve precision. Unknown denominations are returned unscaled for accurate indexing.
Native token balances for a terra1... address. Returns raw base-unit strings — never floats; unknown denoms must not be scaled (see terra-classic-indexing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | terra1... bech32 address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that values are raw base-unit strings, never floats, and warns that unknown denoms must not be scaled. This is meaningful behavior beyond a basic tool description, though it does not cover error cases or response shape in complete detail.
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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical formatting caveat is placed immediately after, making the most important operational detail prominent.
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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential return semantics and a key calculation constraint. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the exact response structure could be helpful, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.
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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter, address. The description only repeats the parameter type ('terra1... bech32 address') and does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter fully.
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 clearly states that the tool returns native token balances for a terra1... address and specifies the return type. It is specific enough to separate it from balance-related contracts, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like wallet_overview or contract_query.
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 implies usage: use it when you need native token balances for an address. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over wallet_overview or other sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions such as contract or IBC balances.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.