GetInstancesCustomersBankAccountsOfframpWalletsByIdFetches an offramp wallet by ID for a customer's bank account in an instance, so you can verify wallet details before initiating payouts.
Get Offramp Wallet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID | |
| instance_id | Yes | ||
| bank_account_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as required permissions, path hierarchy, or return behavior.
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 text is short but under-specified rather than concise. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place by conveying useful information.
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 nested read operation requiring instance_id, customer_id, bank_account_id, and id, the description is inadequate. No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the resource relationships or what the returned wallet represents.
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 only 25%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. With four required IDs and three undocumented in the schema, the description completely fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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?
"Get Offramp Wallet" restates the tool name/title rather than adding meaning. It does not clarify that this retrieves a single offramp wallet by ID, nor how it differs from the sibling list endpoint GetV1InstancesCustomersBankAccountsOfframpWallets.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no references to alternatives. It does not mention that this is the by-ID detail endpoint versus the list or create siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.