Return the Stellar public address for an identity. Look up a public key from a name, seed phrase, or HD path to verify or share an account address.
Given an identity return its address (public key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name of identity to lookup, default test identity used if not provided | |
| hdPath | No | If identity is a seed phrase use this hd path, default is 0 | |
| configDir | No | Location of config directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond being a lookup, it says nothing about what happens if the named identity doesn't exist, whether it requires an unlocked/configured wallet, or what form the returned key takes.
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 compact sentence with no waste, but it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise given the missing usage and behavior context.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least say the return is a public key string and what happens on lookup failure.
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 100%, so the schema already documents name, hdPath, and configDir and their defaults. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: given an identity, returns its public key address. This distinguishes it from siblings like stellar_keys_secret (which returns a secret key), though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus stellar_keys_list, stellar_keys_secret, or stellar_keys_use. The agent gets no context about prerequisites (e.g. whether the identity must already be configured).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.