get_balanceCheck the balance of any Aether address across all known assets, showing whole and base units. Requires only the address, since the server holds no wallet.
Check the balance of an address in every known asset, in whole units and base units. The address is required: this server has no wallet of its own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Aether account address (aether1...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.12Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description still adds valuable behavioral context: results span every known asset and are returned in both whole units and base units, and it clarifies that no wallet state is stored server-side.
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 compact sentences with no waste; the core action and scope are front-loaded, and the required-address constraint follows immediately.
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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, return units, and the address requirement. Minor gaps such as what constitutes 'known assets' or pagination behavior are not addressed, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.
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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by emphasizing that the address is required and explaining why (no server wallet), which reduces ambiguity about whether a default or authenticated account could be used.
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 ('Check the balance of an address') and adds scope detail ('in every known asset, in whole units and base units') that distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_transaction_status and find_services without ambiguity.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose—call it to look up an address balance—but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor any named alternative. The note that the address is required and the server has no wallet is a prerequisite clarification, not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.