Retrieves AQB and USDC balances for a given address, enabling read-only balance checks on the Base settlement rail.
Get AQB and USDC balances for an address (read-only)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "aqb_balance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the call is read-only and names the two token balances returned, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, the shape/units of the result, or what happens when the address argument is omitted.
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?
One short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler wording. The parenthetical '(read-only)' slightly duplicates the 'Get' verb but does add a useful safety signal, so minimal waste.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema the description covers the essentials: what is returned and that it is non-mutating. The notable remaining gap is the optional-address default and result formatting (per-chain, decimals, combined vs separate), which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.
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 0% for the single parameter, and the description only implies that 'address' identifies whose balance is fetched. It does not state the expected address format (hex/EVM, checksum, chain), nor explain the default behavior given that the address parameter is not marked required.
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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AQB and USDC balances for an address'), so the agent can tell exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling in the listed set is a balance-reader, so confusion risk is low.
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?
There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the address must be registered or an agent), and no mention of alternatives for other balance or account queries. Only the '(read-only)' tag hints at safe usage, which is a behavioral marker rather than guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed