Retrieve the SPL token balance for a given wallet address and token mint on Solana.
Get SPL token balance for a wallet address and token mint
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "solana_get_token_balance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. The description states it gets a balance but omits critical details like error handling (e.g., if token mint doesn't exist), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The mismatch between described parameters (wallet address, token mint) and empty schema further confuses the agent.
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 brief (one sentence) but incomplete and inaccurate. It sacrifices correctness for brevity, omitting the actual schema structure and providing false parameter expectations.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate with full behavioral details. Instead, it only offers a high-level purpose and misaligned parameters, leaving the agent unaware of how to properly call the tool (e.g., how to specify the required inputs).
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 description mentions two parameters (wallet address, token mint) but the input schema has no properties. This contradiction is misleading. With schema coverage at 100% (no params), the description's added meaning is incorrect, failing to help the agent invoke the tool correctly.
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 the tool retrieves an SPL token balance for a wallet and token mint, which distinguishes it from siblings like solana_get_balance (SOL balance) and solana_get_token_info (token metadata). However, the parameter information in the description contradicts the input schema, creating ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as solana_scan_tokens for multiple tokens or solana_get_balance for native SOL. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.