Fetch synced crypto accounts from Lunch Money, covering Coinbase, Kraken, and Ethereum wallets, with per-symbol balances.
Get all synced crypto accounts (Coinbase, Kraken, Ethereum wallets) and their nested per-symbol balances. Synced accounts are connected in the Lunch Money web app and cannot be created or edited through the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains that synced accounts are web-app connected and not API-editable, adding meaningful context about data origin and constraints. It also mentions the nested per-symbol balance structure, providing additional behavioral detail without being verbose.
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 description is two sentences: the first front-loads the primary purpose, the second adds essential context about the data source and limitations. No wasted words.
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 zero-parity, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (synced accounts and per-symbol balances) and the operational context (web-app connected, not API-editable). It is complete for its simplicity.
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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; the baseline for 0 params is 4, and this is met.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves all synced crypto accounts with their nested per-symbol balances. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'synced' versus manual accounts and 'all' versus single account tools.
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 provides context that synced accounts are connected via the Lunch Money web app and cannot be created/edited via API, implying this tool is for read-only retrieval of such accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives but clearly sets expectations for when this tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.