Create your managed agent wallet, or return the existing one (idempotent). Returns the Solana side as walletId and address, and the Base side as baseWalletId and baseAddress. Rarely needed: the dashboard provisions the wallet, and get_agent_wallet creates a missing Base side. Fund either address with USDC to pay for the paid tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-establish safety. It adds real context beyond the annotations: the two-sided wallet structure (Solana walletId/address, Base baseWalletId/baseAddress) and the operational note that either address must be funded with USDC to use paid tools. It stops short of auth/rate-limit detail, but the added behavioral context is substantial.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core create-or-return behavior, then return shape, then usage guidance, then funding note. Each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or 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?
An output schema exists, yet the description still concisely maps the return fields, and it covers the practical question of what the wallet is for and how to fund it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.
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. There are no parameter semantics to disambiguate, and the description correctly does not invent any.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Create your managed agent wallet') with a precise scope qualifier: it returns the existing wallet rather than creating a duplicate. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_agent_wallet by naming it directly.
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?
Explicitly states when NOT to use it ('Rarely needed: the dashboard provisions the wallet') and names the alternative ('get_agent_wallet creates a missing Base side'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance that makes selection unambiguous.
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.