GetV1InstancesCustomersBlockchainWalletsByIdRetrieve a specific blockchain wallet by ID for a customer in an instance to manage stablecoin payments and payouts.
Retrieve Blockchain Wallet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID | |
| instance_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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what the wallet record contains, whether it covers EVM/Solana/Stellar chains, or what happens on a missing or mismatched ID.
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?
Three words with zero waste and front-loaded, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. There is no structure to speak of and nothing to route the agent.
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 tool requiring three opaque prefixed identifiers and returning a wallet object with no output schema, the description should say what is returned and how errors surface. It provides none of that, leaving the nested instance/customer/wallet hierarchy entirely implicit.
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 33% - both 'id' and 'instance_id' are left undocumented in the schema, and the description does not compensate at all. The 15-character prefixed identifier format (bk_/in_/re_) and the containment relationship between instance, customer and wallet ID are never explained.
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 'Retrieve Blockchain Wallet' essentially restates the tool name and title with no additional specification. It does signal a read of a single wallet resource, but never contrasts with the sibling list endpoint (GetV1InstancesCustomersBlockchainWallets) or the sign-message variant, so an agent still has to infer that the 'ById' suffix means a single-record fetch.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer from the tool name alone that this is the single-wallet lookup path versus the list or sign-message siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.