lunchflow_get_account_balanceRetrieves the current balance for a single bank account using its account ID. Use it to check available funds after listing accounts.
Get the current balance for one account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Account id, as returned by lunchflow_list_accounts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about data freshness, caching, error behavior for invalid IDs, or what the balance represents, so it contributes little beyond the structured annotations.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is redundant or poorly ordered.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say something about what the balance looks like (amount, currency, timestamp). That gap keeps it at minimum-viable rather than complete.
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% and the single account_id parameter is fully documented as coming from lunchflow_list_accounts, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current balance') scoped to 'one account', which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from lunchflow_get_account_transactions or lunchflow_list_accounts, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites such as obtaining a valid account_id first. The only hint is the phrase 'for one account', which implies single-account scope but gives no alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.