Starknet MCP Server

get_starknet_token_balance

Retrieve the token balance for any Starknet address or Starknet ID by providing the token contract address and owner address. Supports mainnet and sepolia networks.

Instructions

Get the token balance for a Starknet address or Starknet ID

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": {
      "tokenAddress": "<tokenAddress>",
      "ownerAddress": "<ownerAddress>"
    },
    "name": "get_starknet_token_balance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`network`	No	Network name (e.g., 'mainnet', 'sepolia'). Defaults to Mainnet.
`ownerAddress`	Yes	Owner's Starknet address or Starknet ID
`tokenAddress`	Yes	Token contract address or Starknet ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 19, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It fails to disclose that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or what the response format looks like (e.g., raw balance vs. human-readable).

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 a single, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded and to the point, but could be more structured with separate sections for clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the balance format, decimals, or any constraints on the token/owner addresses, leaving an agent underinformed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for this metric.

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 it retrieves a token balance for a Starknet address or ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle native balances or NFTs. However, it doesn't specify that it's for ERC20 tokens, which could be ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_starknet_eth_balance, get_starknet_strk_balance, or get_starknet_native_balances. The description does not mention scope or exclusions.

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