Retrieves the token owner's account details, including balances and currency. Use it to confirm which account the token belongs to, regardless of any default related account.
Get the token owner's account, balances and currency.
Always returns the token owner, regardless of the default related account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral nuance — it always resolves to the token owner and ignores the default related account — but says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or response shape (though an output schema exists).
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, zero waste: the first states the operation and the second front-loads the disambiguating constraint immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 parameterless, read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. Only the absence of any note on auth/error behavior keeps it from being fully complete.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly omits any parameter discussion rather than inventing one.
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 ('Get the token owner's account, balances and currency') and implicitly separates this tool from related-account siblings via 'regardless of the default related account.' It does not name `list_related_accounts` or `get_accounts_by_id` outright, so differentiation requires a small inference.
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 second sentence provides clear context: use this when the token owner's own account is wanted, even if a default related account is configured — which is the key distinction from the related-account tools. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative sibling to use instead, so a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.