RustChain + BoTTube MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rustchain Create Wallet

rustchain_create_wallet

Create a new RTC token wallet for an AI agent with zero-friction onboarding. Provide an agent name to generate a slugified wallet ID ready for blockchain transactions.

Instructions

Create a new RTC wallet for an AI agent. Zero friction onboarding.

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": {
      "agent_name": "<agent_name>"
    },
    "name": "rustchain_create_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_name`	Yes	Name for the agent wallet (e.g., "my-crewai-agent"). Will be slugified to create the wallet ID.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0Sep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agent_name / description

Added value: +"Name for the agent wallet (e.g., \"my-crewai-agent\").\n        Will be slugified to create the wallet ID."

First observedv0.2.1Mar 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and the vague 'Zero friction onboarding' phrase. There is no mention of persistence, side effects, uniqueness constraints, or irreversible effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutating 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. The second sentence 'Zero friction onboarding' is somewhat vague and adds little technical value, preventing a 5, but the overall size and structure are 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 the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, a compact description can be sufficient. However, with no annotations and no mention of prerequisites, network context, or whether wallet creation has persistent on-chain effects, the description leaves some gaps in contextual completeness for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 single parameter 'agent_name' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including an example and the slugification behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new RTC wallet for an AI agent.' This clearly identifies the core action and the target entity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'wallet_create', so it lacks explicit sibling-level distinction while still being reasonably clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'wallet_create' or 'wallet_import'. The phrase 'Zero friction onboarding' hints at onboarding context but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, providing essentially no usable guidance.

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