Retrieves the user's current pre-funded wallet balance. Requires a valid session token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | The secure session token returned by verify_agent_otp or a Personal Access Token. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| isError | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "text"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "isError": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the auth requirement, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about caching, freshness, or failure modes (e.g., expired token).
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 short sentences with zero redundancy; the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the auth prerequisite.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one-parameter schema is fully documented. Adding a note on token expiry behavior or the read-only, closed-world nature would close the remaining gap.
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% and the single token parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its source: verify_agent_otp or PAT). The description's mention of a valid session token merely echoes this, so 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 ('Retrieves the user's current pre-funded wallet balance'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_wallet_transactions, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 states a prerequisite ('Requires a valid session token') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing rules against alternatives like get_wallet_transactions. Usage is implied rather than articulated.
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.