provision_walletUse this to create a gasless, non-custodial CDP Embedded Wallet address on Base (TEE keys, user-exportable) to receive routed value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the openWorldHint annotation, the description adds behavioral details: gasless, non-custodial, TEE keys, user-exportable. This provides valuable context about how the wallet works (e.g., key security, exportability) without contradicting 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 a single sentence that conveys all key attributes concisely, with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
The description covers the purpose and key behavioral traits, but fails to explain the 'owner' parameter or the output format. Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the omission is notable but not severely incomplete.
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 sole parameter 'owner' is not explained in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify what 'owner' represents or how it should be provided, leaving a critical gap for correct invocation.
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 creates a gasless, non-custodial CDP Embedded Wallet address on Base. It specifies the purpose ('to receive routed value') and uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('wallet address'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with swaps and onramp sessions.
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 implies usage when a Base wallet is needed for receiving routed value, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. Since sibling tools are different, confusion is minimal, but explicit guidance is absent.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but create_swap and create_onramp_session both result in acquiring USDC on Base, and get_route_quote covers both fiat and crypto routes; minor potential for confusion.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_swap, create_onramp_session, etc.), making the set predictable.
With 5 tools covering quoting, swapping, status checks, fiat onramp, and wallet creation, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The set covers quoting, swapping, fiat onramp, and wallet provisioning, but lacks offramp execution (crypto to fiat), cancellation, or token/chain discovery, leaving notable gaps.