Retrieve the balance of a specific cryptocurrency held in a synced account. Provide the account ID and coin symbol to get the current amount.
Get a single balance held inside a synced crypto account, looked up by its cryptocurrency symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Cryptocurrency symbol held within the synced account, e.g. 'eth'. | |
| crypto_id | Yes | Id of the synced crypto account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only minimal behavioral context—that a single balance is returned—and does not disclose not-found behavior, return format, or whether the balance represents the current/latest value.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and lookup mechanism.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple read-only lookup with fully documented parameters, but since there is no output schema, the return format is not explained. It also does not provide any explicit contrast with closely related siblings like get_crypto_synced_balance_history or get_single_synced_crypto.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description's phrase 'looked up by its cryptocurrency symbol' maps to the symbol parameter and 'synced crypto account' maps to crypto_id, but it adds no new constraints or format details beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('a single balance held inside a synced crypto account'), and states the lookup key ('by its cryptocurrency symbol'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as get_all_synced_crypto and get_crypto_synced_balance_history.
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 intended usage is implied: use this to fetch one current balance by symbol rather than account details or balance history. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.