Check liquid staking token balances (stNEAR, LiNEAR) for any NEAR account. Specify network and protocol to retrieve staked amounts across Meta Pool and Linear.
Check liquid staking token balances (stNEAR, LiNEAR) for an account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | NEAR network (default: mainnet) | |
| protocol | No | Which protocol to check (default: all) | |
| account_id | Yes | NEAR account ID to check balances for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only operation and the scope is clear, but the description does not disclose default behavior (e.g., network defaults to mainnet, protocol defaults to all) or what happens for invalid accounts. It is adequate but minimal.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
The definition is sufficient for a simple balance lookup, and parameters are fully schema-documented. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could usefully state what the response contains (e.g., balance values per token) and confirm default network/protocol behavior. These gaps keep it from being fully complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by mapping stNEAR and LiNEAR to the protocol enum values (meta-pool and linear), which helps an agent select the correct protocol without prior domain knowledge.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('liquid staking token balances ... for an account'), naming concrete tokens (stNEAR, LiNEAR). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle rates, staking/unstaking, APY, and provider comparisons.
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?
The intended use is implied: call this tool when you need an account's liquid staking token balances. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.