Lista os saldos multi-moeda de um profile. Cada balance tem um id que é usado em wise_get_balance_statement. Default STANDARD; passe 'SAVINGS' pra jars/pots.
Bulk support: accepts profile_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| types | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| profile_id | Yes | ||
| profile_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description adds useful behavioral details like default STANDARD type and batch execution support, without any contradiction.
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 paragraphs with the first sentence front-loading the purpose, and no extra words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
While annotations cover safety and the description explains most aspects, the unexplained 'account' parameter and lack of return format info (no output schema) leave some gaps for an agent.
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 description explains the 'types' parameter (STANDARD/SAVINGS), implies 'profile_id', and introduces 'profile_ids' for batch, but does not address the 'account' parameter, leaving a gap given the 0% schema coverage.
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 it lists multi-currency balances of a profile, using a specific verb 'List' and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wise_get_balance_statement by mentioning the id link.
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?
Implicit guidance on when to use (listing balances) and hints at using wise_get_balance_statement for specific statements via the id, but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not scenarios.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The six general MCP platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are separate from the six Wise-specific query tools (wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles, etc.). No two tools overlap in functionality.
The Wise-specific tools consistently follow the pattern 'wise_verb_noun' (e.g., wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles). The general tools use short descriptive names without a prefix, which is a minor inconsistency, but the grouping is logical and readable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped. It provides sufficient coverage for both the MCP platform utilities and the Wise financial data integration without being bloated or sparse.
The tool set covers the core read operations for Wise (profiles, balances, transactions, card events, activities) and the essential MCP platform functions. Missing are write operations like creating transfers, but the server's focus appears to be data retrieval, so this is a minor gap.