payping_get_balanceRetrieve the current PayPing wallet balance in Toman to see funds received but not yet withdrawn. Use it to check available merchant balance before settlement.
Current PayPing wallet balance in Toman (money received and not yet withdrawn).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_get_balanceArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_get_balanceDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — the unit is Toman and the balance excludes already-withdrawn funds — but says nothing about auth requirements, freshness/caching, or multi-wallet behavior despite openWorldHint=true.
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 sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately qualifies it. No filler, no redundancy with the title.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, very little is required from the description. The currency and balance definition are sufficient to call and interpret it, though an agent gets no hint about the response shape or what an empty/zero balance looks like.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description correctly avoids inventing any. The unit (Toman) is the only semantic detail relevant to interpreting the result, and it is supplied.
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 resource (PayPing wallet balance) and pins down its scope with the parenthetical 'money received and not yet withdrawn', which separates it from the sibling withdrawal tools. It does not, however, name or contrast with an actual sibling by name, so it stops 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 statement of when to call this versus payping_get_withdrawal or payping_list_transactions, and no prerequisites (e.g., authentication, token type) are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.