Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nano-wallet

nano-wallet

by dhyabi2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

balance

Read an account's current funds and pending receivable amount, and check whether the network has confirmed its latest block.

Instructions

Read an account's balance and what is waiting to be pocketed. The balance is the account's latest block; confirmed says whether the network has confirmed that block yet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "balance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesnano_... or xrb_... address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully explains that the balance is the account's latest block and that `confirmed` indicates network confirmation, and it mentions pending amounts, but it does not cover permissions, error behavior, or whether the address must be validated first.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core operation. The explanation of `confirmed` earns its place, though the colloquial phrase 'waiting to be pocketed' is slightly less precise than needed for an agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the balance and confirmation semantics. It could say more about the pending amount's return format or units, but it is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single `address` parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about the address parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb, 'Read', and resources: an account's balance and pending amount ('what is waiting to be pocketed'). It is clearly a query tool relative to create_address, receive, and validate_address, though it does not explicitly name sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It implies a read/check operation but does not tell the agent when to choose this versus receive or validate_address.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools