Check the token balance for any Celo address by supplying the wallet address and token contract address. Get the exact amount of that token held by the wallet.
Get the token balance for a specific address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The address to check the balance for. | |
| token_address | Yes | The contract address of the token. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It only states the basic read operation but fails to disclose behavior on invalid inputs, error states, or any potential side effects.
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 sentence, concise but lacking additional context that could be useful. It earns its place but is somewhat under-specified.
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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks context on error scenarios, return format, or comparison with similar tools, leaving gaps for the agent.
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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline of 3.
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 action (get), resource (token balance), and target (specific address). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_stable_token_balance' by omission of 'stable', though not explicitly differentiated.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stable_token_balance or get_celo_balances. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.