Skip to main content
Glama

get_stake_balances

Retrieve staked SOL (jupSOL) balance information for cryptocurrency portfolio tracking and staking management.

Instructions

Get the balance of staked SOL (jupSOL).

Returns a StakeBalanceResponse.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
total_stake_amountYesTotal stake balance in jupSol
total_stake_amount_in_usdYesTotal stake balance in USD

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler function for 'get_stake_balances' that checks authentication and delegates to ArmorWalletAPIClient.get_stake_balances()
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_stake_balances() -> StakeBalanceResponse:
        """
        Get the balance of staked SOL (jupSOL).
        
        Returns a StakeBalanceResponse.
        """
        if not armor_client:
            return [{"error": "Not logged in"}]
        try:
            result: StakeBalanceResponse = await armor_client.get_stake_balances()
            return result
        except Exception as e:
            return [{"error": str(e)}]
  • Pydantic model defining the response schema for stake balances
    class StakeBalanceResponse(BaseModel):
        total_stake_amount: float = Field(description="Total stake balance in jupSol")
        total_stake_amount_in_usd: float = Field(description="Total stake balance in USD")
  • ArmorWalletAPIClient method implementing the API call to fetch stake balances
    async def get_stake_balances(self) -> StakeBalanceResponse:
        """Get the stake balances."""
        return await self._api_call("GET", "frontend/wallets/stake/balance/")
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'StakeBalanceResponse' but does not elaborate on what that includes, potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 very concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the return information more seamlessly, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns a StakeBalanceResponse'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or error handling. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive, aligning with a score of 3.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add any parameter information, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is assigned as the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps, and it correctly avoids redundancy.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the balance of staked SOL (jupSOL).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('balance of staked SOL'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_wallet_token_balance' or 'get_all_wallets', which might also retrieve balance-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it applies to specific wallets or groups. With siblings like 'get_wallet_token_balance' available, the lack of comparative usage advice leaves the agent without clear direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/emmaThompson07/armor-crypto-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server