gno_wallet_realmsRetrieve realms a gno.land wallet has called, with per-realm call counts, using address, limit, and offset for pagination.
Which realms a wallet has called, with counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | next_offset from the previous page | |
| address | Yes | g1… address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results include counts, but says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, or response shape.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, its extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain pagination, result limits, and whether this is a read-only query. It gives only the core resource and the presence of counts, leaving several practical gaps for a three-parameter tool.
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 description coverage is 67%, and the description only hints that the address parameter represents the wallet. It does not explain limit/offset semantics beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific resource ('realms a wallet has called') and adds the return characteristic ('with counts'), which distinguishes it from gno_realms. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' and does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gno_realms or gno_realm_graph, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The wallet-scoped nature is only implied by the phrase 'a wallet has called'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.