growwer_get_seller_walletRetrieve a seller's current withdrawable balance and funds held until orders settle to answer what their sales earned.
Use this when the user asks what their sales earned: answers the balance they can withdraw now and what is held until orders settle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content: the response splits into immediately withdrawable funds versus amounts pending order settlement, which an agent would otherwise not know. Auth or currency details are unstated, keeping it below a 5.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the use-case trigger and followed by the payoff. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing to trim.
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 output schema, the description carries the return-value explanation, and it does describe the two balance components. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; currency, seller verification state, and pending-payout timing are left implicit.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is nominally 100% but the schema is empty, so no param burden exists at all.
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 names the resource (seller wallet) and states concretely what it returns: the withdrawable balance and funds held until orders settle. That is more specific than the title. It does not explicitly contrast with growwer_get_buyer_wallet or growwer_list_withdrawals, but the seller/buyer distinction is carried by the name.
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?
"Use this when the user asks what their sales earned" gives a clear triggering condition tied to user intent, which is the main thing an agent needs for selection. It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing to alternatives such as list_withdrawals for withdrawal history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.