ashar_list_walletsList a tenant's custodial wallets with balances to review IDs, names, networks, addresses, tokens, and current holdings; no arguments required.
List the tenant's custodial wallets with their balances.
No arguments. Returns an array of wallets (id, name, network, address, token, balance).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned wallet fields, which matters because 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the return shape immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the inline field list substitutes adequately, and the annotations handle safety. Minor gap: no mention of whether balances are live, per-token, or whether the list can be long/paginated.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description explicitly confirms 'No arguments', removing any doubt about required inputs.
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 (list the tenant's custodial wallets) plus the salient payload attribute (balances). 'Tenant's' scopes it away from the many customer-scoped wallet siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied — 'No arguments' signals an unfiltered tenant-wide listing. It does not say when to prefer this over ashar_list_customer_custodial_wallets or ashar_get_wallet_balance for a single balance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.