Retrieve the balance of a specific Glyph token for any Radiant address using its token reference (txid_vout).
Get balance of a specific Glyph token for an address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Radiant address | |
| token_ref | Yes | Token reference (txid_vout) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' conveys a read-only intent, but the description does not specify return format, token units, or any other behavioral details such as decimal handling or whether unconfirmed balances are included.
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, front-loaded, 12-word sentence that states the action and scope without filler or redundant schema information. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter read operation with fully described inputs, the description is nearly complete for selection and invocation. The only notable gap is the absence of an output schema or explicit return-value/unit description, though the meaning of 'balance' is largely self-explanatory.
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 both parameters are already documented well. The description adds a 'Glyph' qualifier but no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline score for fully covered parameters.
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'), a specific resource ('balance of a specific Glyph token'), and a scope ('for an address'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like radiant_get_balance, radiant_get_token, and radiant_get_token_utxos.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named. The intended usage is only implied by the phrasing 'Get balance...', so an agent has to infer that this tool is for querying a single address's token balance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.