DoubleData MCP

Get wallet balance

get_balance

Read-only

Retrieves your organization's prepaid wallet balance in USD cents to help track available funds; package GB balances appear in usage and credential funding.

Instructions

Return the organization's prepaid wallet balance in USD cents. Package GB balances are reflected in usage and credential funding.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_balance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context, the unit (USD cents) and the fact that package GB balances are excluded, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what the response contains. With annotations carrying safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose plus unit is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly ambiguous in phrasing ("reflected in usage and credential funding"), but it does convey real scope information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a parameterless read tool with annotations covering safety, the main remaining gap is return shape, and no output schema exists. The description tells the unit and what the balance excludes, but not whether the response is a bare integer or an object with fields, leaving the agent to discover that at call time.

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

Parameters4/5

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. Baseline 4 applies; the sentence about which balances are excluded adds context but is not parameter semantics.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Return the organization's prepaid wallet balance") plus the unit (USD cents), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_usage or get_invoice. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the scope of the balance is clarified in the second sentence.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The second sentence implies usage boundaries by noting that package GB balances go to usage and credential funding rather than this balance, which nudges the agent toward the right sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so the routing is only implied.

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