Check current ETH and USDG balances to verify available funds for wallet operations and payments.
ETH and USDG balances of this wallet.
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": "get_balance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys a read-only balance lookup by implication, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, authentication assumptions, or whether balances include pending transactions.
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 sentence with no wasted words. Every element—asset types, 'balances', and wallet scope—adds useful meaning.
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 zero-parameter balance lookup, the description is nearly complete: it names the wallet scope and the returned asset types. It does not specify the response structure or define 'this wallet', but those gaps are minor given the absence of an output schema and parameters.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter behavior for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 identifies the resource ('ETH and USDG balances') and scopes it to 'this wallet', making the tool's purpose easy to infer. It does not explicitly state a verb or name sibling alternatives, but the asset-specific wording distinguishes it from session, address, and payment 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?
The intended use—checking the current wallet's ETH/USDG balance—is implied by the phrase 'balances of this wallet'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.