BlindPay MCP Server

Get Instances Customers Wallets By Id

GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsById

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific customer's wallet by instance and customer ID to check balances or manage stablecoin payments.

Instructions

Retrieve Wallet

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "instance_id": "<instance_id>",
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsById"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes	Customer ID
`instance_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.9.3Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

D1.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of authorization scoping on instance_id/customer_id, no pagination or not-found behavior, and no disclosure beyond what annotations give.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two words, so there's no bloat, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded content an agent can act on beyond the bare verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A three-required-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation needs the description to explain what it returns and how the identifiers combine. Nothing in "Retrieve Wallet" fills that gap for an agent choosing among ~90 sibling endpoints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%; only customer_id has a description ("Customer ID"), and the required `id` wallet identifier has none. The description does not compensate by explaining that the 15-character bk_ prefixed id is the wallet identifier scoped to a customer within an instance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Retrieve Wallet" is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title (Get...Wallets...ById) rather than a description. It gives no detail about what a wallet record contains, what scope the retrieval covers, or how it differs from siblings like GetV1InstancesCustomersWallets (the list version) or GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsBalance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent wallet endpoints (list, balance, deposits, yield, blockchain wallets). The description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server