Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic AQUA

Agentic AQUA

Official
by AquaWallet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lw_create_wallet

Create a new Bitcoin and Liquid wallet from a freshly generated 12-word seed without revealing it, then prompt the user to back up the seed.

Instructions

Create a new wallet (both Liquid and Bitcoin) from a freshly generated 12-word seed. The seed is NEVER shown or returned. After creating, recommend that the user back up the seed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lw_create_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNoNetwork to usemainnet
passwordNoOptional password to encrypt the mnemonic at rest (NOT a BIP39 passphrase)
wallet_nameNoName for the walletdefault
password_fileNoPath to a local file containing the wallet password; keeps the password out of the conversation. Do not combine with password.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the mnemonic is never shown or returned, but says nothing about whether creation is destructive when wallet_name collides with an existing wallet (the default 'default' makes this a realistic risk), whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions or prerequisites apply, or what the call returns. That leaves key behavioral questions unanswered for a write operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Slight deduction because the closing instruction to back up a seed that is 'NEVER shown or returned' reads as a mild internal tension rather than clear guidance.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the seed-secrecy contract but omits return shape and name-collision behavior. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, but short of what an agent needs to reason about side effects.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents network, password, wallet_name, and password_file, including the important 'NOT a BIP39 passphrase' clarification. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting the 12-word seed length. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create a new wallet) plus scope ('both Liquid and Bitcoin') and the source of key material ('freshly generated 12-word seed'). The 'freshly generated' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling import tools (lw_import_mnemonic, lw_import_descriptor), so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives a post-call workflow instruction ('recommend that the user back up the seed'), which is useful. However, it never says when to prefer this over lw_import_mnemonic or lw_import_descriptor, nor whether the agent should first check lw_list_wallets for an existing wallet with the same name. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools