ashar_get_wallet_balanceRetrieves a custodial wallet's available, total, and pending balances plus token details using its wallet ID, so you can check funds before exchange operations.
Get the balance of a single custodial wallet.
Args:
wallet_id (string): the wallet id
Returns available, total, pending, and token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet_id | Yes | Wallet id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by naming the returned fields (available, total, pending, token), which is valuable given there is no output schema.
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 purpose and return fields are front-loaded in one sentence. The Args block duplicates the schema verbatim and could be dropped, but total length is still small and the return-value detail earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both input and the shape of the response, which is the key gap it needed to fill. Minor omissions remain (error behavior for an unknown wallet_id, currency/units of the balances).
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% for the single required parameter, so the baseline applies. The Args block merely restates 'wallet_id (string): the wallet id' without adding format, source, or lookup guidance.
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 with scope ('balance of a single custodial wallet'), which is clearly distinct from list/create wallet siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate from the very similar ashar_get_customer_custodial_wallet_balance, leaving the agent to infer which entity each targets.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; nothing tells the agent to prefer this over ashar_get_customer_custodial_wallet_balance or ashar_get_customer_custodial_wallet. Usage is only inferable from the name and the phrase 'single custodial wallet'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.