Check BSV balance for any Bitcoin SV address via WhatsOnChain. Retrieve the current balance for an address such as the one stored in ~/.peck/identity.json.
Check BSV balance for any address via WhatsOnChain. Use with your address from ~/.peck/identity.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | BSV address to check. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It makes the read-only nature clear through 'Check' and names the external dependency WhatsOnChain, but it does not mention behavior for invalid addresses, network failures, or whether the lookup has any 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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the identity-file hint is directly useful to an agent selecting the tool.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup, the description covers the tool's purpose, data source, and address source. The only notable gaps are the return denomination/format and error behavior, which are minor given there is no output schema.
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?
The input schema already fully documents the single 'address' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds only the usage hint about where the user's address can be found, which is useful but does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 precise action ('Check'), a concrete resource ('BSV balance'), scope ('for any address'), and the data source ('via WhatsOnChain'). This clearly separates it from the many peck_* transaction and identity tools.
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?
It gives a clear operating context: use the address from ~/.peck/identity.json. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but for a simple balance lookup the applicable context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.