veil_get_balancesCheck public, Veil queue, and private wallet balances by pool or owner address, with private access when the managed Veil key is available.
Read public wallet balances, Veil queue balances, and private balances when the managed Veil key is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | No | Pool to query. Defaults to all. | |
| owner | No | Owner address. Defaults to first approved WalletChan account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that private balances require the managed Veil key to be available, which is a useful prerequisite, but it omits auth requirements for public/queue balances and does not describe return behavior or error handling.
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. It states the action and the balance categories immediately, then adds the key condition without redundancy.
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 low-complexity, read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description names the returned balance categories and a key prerequisite. It still leaves sibling differentiation and richer return or failure details implicit, so it is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., enum meaning or owner default behavior), leaving the baseline score of 3.
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 ('Read') and names three balance categories, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling balance-readers such as get_portfolio_balances or agent_eoa_get_balance.
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 only conditional language is 'when the managed Veil key is available' for private balances, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternative balance tools. An agent must infer when this tool is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.