Check a Radiant address balance by entering its base58 address. Get both confirmed and unconfirmed amounts in satoshis and RXD, helping you track funds accurately.
Get RXD balance for a Radiant address (confirmed and unconfirmed, in both satoshis and RXD)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Radiant address (base58check encoded, starts with 1 or 3) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns both confirmed and unconfirmed balances and in two units (satoshis and RXD), which is useful behavioral detail beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature) or error behavior, but for a getter this is a moderate disclosure.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes essential scoping details (confirmed/unconfirmed, units) with zero waste. It is efficient and easy to parse.
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-only getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and return values. However, it omits potential error conditions, response format specifics, and network requirements, which would be helpful given the lack of annotations. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, so the address parameter is already fully documented in the schema (format and encoding). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'for a Radiant address', which is redundant. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantics.
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 specific verb ('Get'), resource ('RXD balance'), and target ('a Radiant address'), and clarifies the return scope (confirmed/unconfirmed, in satoshis and RXD). It is clear and distinguishes from token balance tools like radiant_get_token_balance, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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: if you need an RXD balance for an address, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like radiant_get_utxos (which returns UTXOs) or radiant_get_history (which returns transaction history), leaving the agent to infer the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.