robinhood_wallet_balanceRetrieve a wallet's ETH balance on Robinhood Chain and optionally include a specified token's balance for clear portfolio checks.
ETH balance of a wallet on Robinhood Chain, plus one token's balance if a token is given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Token symbol, name or 0x contract address on Robinhood Chain, e.g. TORCH | |
| address | Yes | Wallet address (0x…) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description usefully clarifies that ETH is always returned while the token balance is additive when a token arg is supplied. It omits error behavior (invalid address, unknown token symbol) and chain caveats, which matter for a live-balance read.
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?
One sentence, no waste, with the primary result (ETH balance) front-loaded and the conditional token part trailing. Exactly the shape an agent needs.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what comes back beyond 'balance' — no indication of units, formatting, decimals, or how an unknown token is reported. For a simple 2-param read it is close, but the return shape is left uncovered.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including token accepting symbol/name/0x address. The description only reinforces that token is optional, adding little beyond the schema baseline.
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?
States a specific resource (ETH balance of a wallet) constrained to Robinhood Chain, plus an optional token balance, so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the resource scope makes it distinguishable from token_info/trending_tokens/swap tools.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrasing: call it when you need a wallet's ETH balance, optionally a token balance. No explicit when-not conditions or pointer to alternatives (e.g. robinhood_token_info for token metadata) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.