Get Arcadia points balance for a specific wallet address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet_address | Yes | Wallet address to get points for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description needs limited behavioral disclosure. It adds the resource context (Arcadia points) and the targeting of a specific wallet, but provides no additional behavioral details beyond what the annotations convey.
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 description is a single, direct sentence that immediately conveys the function without wasted words or 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. It specifies the resource and target, and annotations cover safety, making the tool fully understandable.
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?
The schema has full coverage for the single parameter (wallet_address) with a clear description. The main description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.
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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the specific resource ('Arcadia points balance'), and the scope ('for a specific wallet address'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_point_leaderboard (which provides ranking data) and read_wallet_balances (which likely covers token balances).
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 description clearly implies the tool is for fetching points for a single wallet address. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like read_point_leaderboard or read_wallet_balances, though the specificity is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear read/write separation and detailed descriptions that specify exact use cases. Overlapping tools like write_account_deposit vs write_account_add_liquidity explicitly cross-reference to avoid misuse, and the asset-manager variants are clearly differentiated by staking/compounding/CowSwap behaviors.
All tools follow a consistent read_* / write_* prefix with snake_case resource and action naming. Subgroup patterns are uniform (e.g., write_account_*, write_asset_manager_*), and the only outlier, dev_send, is intentionally marked as a dev-only exception.
Forty tools is a very large surface, well above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. The seven separate write_asset_manager_* intent tools are highly granular and could likely be consolidated into a single parameterized automation tool, reducing cognitive load.
The tool set covers the full Arcadia lifecycle: account creation, collateral deposit/withdrawal, borrowing/repayment, LP add/remove/close, staking, automations, lending pool deposits/redeems, and comprehensive read operations. No obvious workflow dead ends exist, and all necessary supporting reads (prices, allowances, balances) are present.