Get your managed agent wallet: whether one exists, its Solana address, its USDC balance, and whether it needs funding. Paid tools draw from this wallet, so check it before your first paid call. Fund it by sending USDC (Solana) to wallet_address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | No | Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the tool's read-style behavior, the returned fields, and the wallet's role as the funding source for paid tools. It does not explicitly state error/auth failure modes, but the key side-effect expectations are transparent enough for a simple getter.
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?
Three sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads all returned values, the second provides a concrete trigger, and the third gives a follow-up funding action. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the next action (sending USDC to the returned address). It stops short of explicitly saying what to do when no wallet exists, such as using create_agent_wallet, but the 'whether one exists' output makes that branch easy for the agent to infer.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, auth_token, is already fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 opens with a concrete verb + resource ('Get your managed agent wallet') and enumerates the exact outputs: existence, Solana address, USDC balance, and funding status. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_agent_wallet, agent_wallet_transfer, and get_agent_spend_limit.
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 gives an explicit trigger and rationale: 'Paid tools draw from this wallet, so check it before your first paid call.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the call context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.
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.