wallet_balanceCheck the RTC token balance of a wallet stored in the local keystore by providing its wallet ID.
Check RTC token balance for a local wallet.
Queries the RustChain network for the balance of a wallet stored in the local keystore.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet_id | Yes | The wallet ID to check (e.g., "my-agent", "trading-bot") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does 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 queries the network (implying network dependency) and that it reads from the local keystore. It doesn't mention whether the wallet must exist, what happens if the wallet is not found, or whether this is a read-only operation, but the description's 'check balance' phrasing implies a read operation.
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 waste. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second provides the mechanism. It's front-loaded 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?
The tool has a single parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it doesn't clarify the distinction from rustchain_balance or mention error conditions (e.g., wallet not found, network unavailable). For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not 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 schema already documents the wallet_id parameter. The description adds the context that the wallet is local and stored in the keystore, which helps clarify the parameter's meaning. However, it doesn't add format or validation details beyond the schema.
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 checks the RTC token balance for a local wallet by querying the RustChain network. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'rustchain_balance' by specifying 'local wallet' and 'local keystore', though it doesn't explicitly name the 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 context: it's for checking balances of locally stored wallets, not arbitrary addresses. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over rustchain_balance or other balance-related tools, but the 'local wallet' and 'local keystore' phrasing provides some guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.