Skip to main content
Glama

create_wallet

Creates a sandbox agent wallet owned by a named human; spending is blocked until the owner grants a policy, with optional desk-key binding for spend signatures.

Instructions

Create a sandbox agent wallet owned by a named human. A wallet cannot spend until its owner grants a policy. Optional desk binding (desk_id + desk_pubkey): the wallet takes the desk key's real EVM address and every spend then requires that desk key's signature.

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_id": "<owner_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNo
desk_idNo
owner_idYes
desk_pubkeyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that creation is sandbox-only, that the wallet is inert until a policy is granted, and that desk binding changes the spend authorization model (every spend needs the desk key's signature, address derives from the desk key). It omits failure behavior (e.g., desk_id without desk_pubkey) and idempotency/duplicate handling.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and the critical 'cannot spend yet' constraint front-loaded before the optional desk branch.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what a successful call returns (wallet id, address) and what the 'label' parameter affects. Behavior around the desk-binding branch is well covered, but return shape and one parameter remain undocumented.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning. It explains owner_id (a named human), desk_id, and desk_pubkey with real semantics (key's EVM address, signature requirement), but leaves 'label' entirely undefined and doesn't state required vs optional.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a sandbox agent wallet') with the ownership constraint stated up front. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling reads/mutations like get_wallet, fund_wallet, or set_policy.

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 sentence 'A wallet cannot spend until its owner grants a policy' tells the agent that set_policy is the necessary follow-up step, and the optional desk-binding branch is scoped explicitly. No explicit when-not-to-use case, but the creation context is unambiguous.

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