xportalx

create_wallet

Create a custodial wallet for an AI agent using Privy. Cost: 0.01 USDC. The owner wallet is automatically detected from your x402 payment - no need to provide it explicitly. The wallet can be used for automated transactions including swaps.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "owner_wallet": "<owner_wallet>"
    },
    "name": "create_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No	Optional friendly name for this wallet (e.g., 'Trading Bot', 'Payment Agent')
`owner_wallet`	Yes	Your signing wallet address (0x...) that will own this custodial wallet. Used as the lookup key for future operations. TIP: many clients can also pass just the address string as arguments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description discloses the cost (0.01 USDC) and the behavior that the owner wallet is auto-detected from the x402 payment. However, this contradicts the input schema, which requires 'owner_wallet' as a mandatory field. This serious inconsistency misleads the agent about whether the parameter is needed, undermining trust in the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise at three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds cost and usage details. The only issue is the contradictory owner-detection sentence, which could have been clarified or omitted, but overall the structure is efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return value and how the wallet is used afterward. It mentions usage for automated transactions and cost, but does not describe what the response looks like or how to reference the created wallet. The inconsistent statement about owner_wallet also leaves a gap in completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description attempts to add meaning by stating the owner wallet is auto-detected and 'no need to provide it explicitly,' but this directly contradicts the schema's required 'owner_wallet' field. This confusion reduces the value of the parameter documentation, so a score below baseline 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 purpose: 'Create a custodial wallet for an AI agent using Privy.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('custodial wallet'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fund_wallet or withdraw_wallet by specifying the custodial nature for AI agents and the use case for automated transactions.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is for creating a wallet for an AI agent, with a cost of 0.01 USDC, and the wallet can be used for automated transactions like swaps. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to infer its appropriate use case.

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

All xportalx tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?