Configure how many minutes the agent's wallet remains unlocked before it locks automatically. Set the timeout to 0 to disable auto-lock.
Set how long the agent's wallet stays unlocked before automatically locking. Set to 0 to disable auto-lock.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| minutes | Yes | Minutes until auto-lock (0 = never auto-lock) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the timeout persists across sessions or is per-wallet, whether it takes effect immediately, whether existing unlock state is affected, or what permissions/preconditions apply. For a security-relevant wallet setting, these omissions are significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The core sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is an unrelated cross-sell that does not help an agent invoke this tool and dilutes an otherwise two-sentence definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter setter with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the special value of 0. It is still incomplete regarding persistence, preconditions, and confirmation of effect, which an agent would want before altering wallet security settings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'minutes' is fully documented in the schema, including the 0 = never auto-lock semantics. The description repeats that same fact but adds nothing new such as an upper bound or default value, so it sits at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it sets the wallet's auto-lock timeout, and clarifies the sentinel value (0 = disable auto-lock). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from wallet_lock, wallet_unlock, and wallet_status, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus simply calling wallet_lock/wallet_unlock directly, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the wallet must already be unlocked or whether a password is required. The only extra sentence is a promotional pointer to earning_opportunities, which is not usage guidance for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.