Check an address's full Terra Classic state: native balances, delegations, unbonding, rewards, and authz grants granted to that address. Use it to review exposure and authorized permissions.
Aggregate view of an address: native balances, delegations, unbonding, rewards, and any authz grants granted TO this address (agent-blast-radius check).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes an 'Aggregate view' which implies read-only, but it never explicitly states that it performs no state changes, requires no special permissions, or has any side effects. The lack of explicit transparency is a gap for a tool that could be mistaken for a mutation.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the included data types efficiently. There is no extraneous information or repetition, making it highly concise and easy to scan.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the key data categories but does not describe the output structure, formatting, or potential errors. It is adequate for a high-level understanding but lacks details an agent might need for precise invocation (e.g., whether results are paginated, units of balances, etc.).
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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter is 'address' with no description. The tool description merely says 'of an address' without adding any format constraints (e.g., bech32), validation rules, or examples. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 states a clear, specific purpose: an aggregate view of an address covering native balances, delegations, unbonding, rewards, and authz grants. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'balance' tool by including multiple data categories, making it clear this is a comprehensive overview rather than a simple balance lookup.
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 hints at a specific use case via the parenthetical '(agent-blast-radius check)', suggesting when to use it for security/permission assessment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'balance' for simpler queries. The usage context is implied but not formally guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.