ashar_list_customer_walletsRetrieve all blockchain wallets linked to a specific customer by providing the customer ID, enabling wallet management and account lookup.
List a customer's blockchain wallets.
Args:
customer_id (string): the customer id
Returns an array of blockchain_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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result is an array of blockchain_wallets, which is modestly useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, empty results, or whether unknown customer_id errors.
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 is front-loaded in the first sentence and the whole definition is three short lines with no filler. The Args block duplicates the schema, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.
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 single-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, the required input, and the return shape, which is enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is disambiguation from the custodial and offramp wallet siblings.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the description merely restates 'customer_id (string): the customer id' without adding format, sourcing, or retrieval guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already documents the parameter.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource ('List a customer's blockchain wallets'), but the sibling set contains ashar_list_customer_custodial_wallets and ashar_list_customer_offramp_wallets, and the description gives no basis for telling 'blockchain wallets' apart from those two. The purpose is understandable in isolation but ambiguous when several near-identical list tools exist.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the adjacent wallet-listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the choice entirely from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.