increase_get_account_balanceRetrieve an account's current and available balance. Increase API: GET /accounts/{account_id}/balance. Optionally as of a point in time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at_time | No | ISO 8601 timestamp to get the balance as of that moment (query param at_time). | |
| account_id | Yes | Account id (e.g. account_...). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that both current and available balance are returned, and that an optional point-in-time query is supported. No contradictions with 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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences capture purpose, endpoint, and optional behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately hints at return values (current and available balance). It covers the essential purpose and optional historical query. Some detail on response format or error cases could improve completeness, but it is sufficient for standard usage.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description's role is reduced. The description mentions 'optionally as of a point in time' which aligns with the at_time parameter, but it adds minimal detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Hence, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves an account's current and available balance, and provides the exact API endpoint. The purpose is specific and well-distinguished from siblings like "increase_get_account" which retrieves full account details.
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 description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when an account's balance is needed) and mentions the optional time parameter for historical queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource type (account, account number, ACH transfer, etc.) with clear verb_noun naming, making them easily distinguishable.
All tools follow a consistent `increase_verb_noun` pattern in snake_case, with verbs like create, get, list, lookup.
18 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the scope of banking operations (accounts, transfers, transactions, cards, entities) justifies the count.
The server is heavily read-only with only one mutation (create_external_account). Missing create/update/delete for accounts, transfers, cards, etc., which limits its usefulness for full banking workflows.