Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.realopengroup

remove_wallet

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently remove a wallet from the authenticated user's account. Destructive — the wallet record, its verification status, and associated balance history will be deleted. Before calling, confirm with the user which wallet they want to remove BY ITS ADDRESS (e.g. "remove the Bitcoin wallet at bc1q...abc?") and get explicit confirmation. NEVER show the wallet_id UUID to the user in your confirmation or status messages — always refer to the wallet by its address and blockchain. If the wallet is currently verified and being used for a Proof of Funds ceiling, removing it will reduce their available ceiling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wallet_idYesInternal wallet UUID from get_wallet_summary. Do NOT show this ID to the user or ask them for it — look it up from the address they mentioned.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesremoved | not_found
messageNo
wallet_idNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes far beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing exactly what gets deleted (wallet record, verification status, balance history) and the downstream effect on Proof of Funds ceiling. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact yet dense with essential information. Each sentence conveys critical operational guidance—confirmation, address reference, UUID privacy, and ceiling impact—without filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the destructive nature and complexity, the description covers all necessary operational details: what is deleted, how to confirm with the user, communication constraints, and side effects. Combined with the existing output schema and annotations, the context is fully specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with a detailed description of wallet_id, including the instruction not to show it to the user. The tool description repeats this guidance but does not add new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing existing schema content, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Permanently remove a wallet from the authenticated user's account.' It specifies the resource (wallet) and distinguishes it from siblings like add_wallet, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides strong usage context: requires explicit user confirmation, instructs how to identify the wallet (by address, not UUID), and notes the ceiling impact for verified wallets. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use the tool or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (wallet management, verification, knowledge lookup, marketing, account status), but there is minor overlap between add_wallet and refresh_wallet_verification (both generate verification challenges) and between get_started and get_account_status (both touch on next-step resolution). Descriptions clarify the differences, so confusion is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_wallet, get_wallet_summary, verify_wallet_transfer), with only 'logout' as a single verb, which is still consistent with the imperative style. No mixed conventions or cryptic names.

Tool Count4/5

The server exposes 20 tools, which is on the heavier side of the typical range but appropriate for the broad domain (wallet operations, verification, KYC, knowledge base, marketing assets, referral tracking). Each tool has a distinct role, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle for crypto-to-real-estate transactions: wallet management (add, remove, refresh, verify), identity verification, proof-of-funds generation, knowledge tools (fees, coverage, supported crypto, how-it-works), marketing (snippets, assets, referral), and account navigation (get_started, logout). No obvious gaps that would leave an agent stuck.

Resources