fibx

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Connect an External Wallet

connect_wallet

Start a WalletConnect pairing so users can sign with their own wallet, returning a URI and QR code immediately; show it, then poll connection status until connected.

Instructions

Start a WalletConnect pairing so the user can sign with their own wallet (MetaMask, Rabby, Rainbow, Phantom). Returns a URI and a QR image immediately — show the QR to the user, then poll get_connect_status until it reports connected.

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": "connect_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.10.2Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare this is not read-only and is open-world, but they say nothing about the asynchronous pairing model. The description adds real value by disclosing that the call returns immediately with a URI and QR image and that completion must be detected by polling — behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations alone. It omits URI expiration and session lifetime, which would be the next useful detail.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The capability is front-loaded and the required follow-up actions are sequenced in the order the agent must perform them.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return value (URI plus QR image) and the completion protocol via get_connect_status. Only failure and expiry handling are unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a zero-parameter tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate; baseline applies. No parameter meaning is lost.

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 ('Start a WalletConnect pairing') plus the concrete outcome ('so the user can sign with their own wallet'), and names example wallets. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_connect_status, which only reports status.

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?

Gives explicit downstream instructions: show the QR to the user, then poll get_connect_status until connected. It does not cover the negative case — e.g., checking get_auth_status first if a session already exists, or what to do if pairing expires — so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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