Emergency freeze an agent wallet.
Sets status=killed so the policy gate refuses every subsequent value-bearing action. Returns confirmation + a frozen-positions count. (Turnkey scoped-key revocation is handled by the deferred provisioning ticket.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caller_id | No | ||
| wallet_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the mechanism (sets status=killed), the downstream effect (policy gate refuses value-bearing actions), and the output (confirmation + frozen-positions count). It also discloses a limitation (scoped-key revocation is not handled here). This goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by adding concrete behavioral context. No contradiction.
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 three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the rest delivers essential behavioral detail. 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers all necessary dimensions: purpose, exact effect, return value, and an alternative. It is comprehensive for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
With a schema description coverage of 0%, the description carries full burden for parameter guidance, but it does not mention wallet_address or caller_id at all. The wallet_address is partially implied by "agent wallet," but the optional caller_id remains unexplained. This is a clear gap given the zero coverage.
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 specific, actionable verb phrase: "Emergency freeze an agent wallet." It distinguishes the tool from siblings like enable_agent_wallet, create_agent_wallet, and wallet_status by specifying the freeze action and the mechanism (sets status=killed).
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?
It clearly frames this as an emergency operation, implying a high-stakes context. The note about scoped-key revocation being handled by a deferred provisioning ticket provides an explicit alternative for a related but distinct action, helping the agent decide when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or contrast with wallet_status/enable_agent_wallet.
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.
Multiple tools overlap significantly: close_perp_position vs perp_close, get_leaderboard vs get_score_leaderboard vs get_strategy_leaderboard, get_venue_status vs get_all_venues_status, send_token_social vs bulk_send_social, and get_crank_score vs get_score. Several read-only tools have nearly identical purposes, and the descriptions do not always clarify boundaries.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_balances, create_strategy, set_alert, list_webhooks). However, there are deviations like 'lst_swap', 'jupiter_swap', 'flash_loan', 'sr_backtest', and the use of both 'get_' and 'list_' for reads, plus category prefixes like 'perp_' and 'strategy_' that vary in order. Overall still readable and predictable.
177 tools is an extreme count for any server, far exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Even a full DeFi platform does not need this many separate operations; the surface is overwhelming and clearly not well-scoped.
The domain (Solana DeFi trading) is covered extensively across swaps, perps, lending, staking, strategies, signals, and support. However, there are notable gaps: no lend_withdraw, no direct way to close a lending position, no spot order cancellation (though aggregator-based swaps may not need it), and a general lack of tiered account management. The huge number of tools makes it hard to identify missing lifecycle steps.