ashar_list_customer_custodial_walletsRetrieve all custodial wallets for a specified customer ID to review and manage their wallet holdings.
List a customer's custodial (wallet) wallets.
Args:
customer_id (string): the customer id
Returns an array of curated wallets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Customer id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the main safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns an array of wallets, but it does not clarify the return shape, pagination, or how 'custodial' wallets differ from other wallet types.
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 definition is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the phrasing 'custodial (wallet) wallets' is awkward and the closing 'Returns an array of curated wallets' appears imprecise, likely a typo for custodial, which slightly weakens clarity.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it. But given the crowded set of wallet-related siblings, it is incomplete because it does not explain what a custodial wallet is in this context or how this list differs from adjacent listing tools.
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 customer_id parameter, and the schema already documents it. The description merely repeats 'customer_id (string): the customer id' without adding format, constraints, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 and resource: 'List a customer's custodial (wallet) wallets.' It is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as ashar_list_customer_wallets or ashar_list_wallets, and the later phrase 'curated wallets' adds ambiguity rather than clarification.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other wallet-listing tools. It only documents the required customer_id argument and does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.