Wise MCP Server

One balance

get_balance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific Wise currency balance by ID to view available, reserved, cash, and total funds. Use the balance ID from the balance list and optionally specify a profile.

Instructions

One currency balance by id: available, reserved, cash and total worth.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The balance id, from list_balances.
`profile`	No	The Wise profile id to act for. Defaults to WISE_PROFILE_ID, else the only business profile. See list_profiles.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is meaningful because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about authorization, profile scoping, or behavior when the id does not exist.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy; the resource and its returned fields are stated before any optional detail. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers what the tool is and what it returns. It is slightly thin on when to prefer it over list_balances or get_total_funds, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, profile) carry detailed descriptions including defaults and cross-references to list_balances and list_profiles. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"One currency balance by id" states a specific resource and access mode, and the trailing field list (available, reserved, cash, total worth) tells the agent exactly what data comes back. It implicitly separates itself from list_balances via "by id" but never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The only routing hint ("from list_balances") lives in the schema's parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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