Armor Crypto MCP

Official

by armorwallet

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_stake_balances

Retrieve your staked SOL (jupSOL) balance to monitor your staking position.

Instructions

Get the balance of staked SOL (jupSOL).

Returns a StakeBalanceResponse.

Tool call template

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_stake_balances"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total_stake_amount`	Yes	Total stake balance in jupSol
`total_stake_amount_in_usd`	Yes	Total stake balance in USD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2025

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the return type without detailing auth needs, rate limits, or safety characteristics (e.g., read-only nature is implied but not stated).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words, achieving maximum conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could clarify the scope (e.g., per wallet or global) and the meaning of jupSOL. Adequate but leaves room for improvement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has no parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value by restating the tool's purpose, but the schema already covers all param info. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no missing semantic detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get the balance of staked SOL (jupSOL)', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_wallet_token_balance by focusing specifically on staked SOL (jupSOL).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_wallet_token_balance, stake_quote). There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.