Skip to main content
Glama
armorwallet
by armorwallet

send_key_to_telegram

Transmit wallet mnemonic or private key securely to Telegram for streamlined access and management within the Armor Crypto MCP server ecosystem.

Instructions

Send the mnemonic or private key to telegram.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
private_key_requestYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool registration decorator and wrapper handler that delegates to the ArmorWalletAPIClient method.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def send_key_to_telegram(private_key_request: PrivateKeyRequest) -> Dict:
        """
        Send the mnemonic or private key to telegram.
        """
        if not armor_client:
            return [{"error": "Not logged in"}]
        try:
            result: Dict = await armor_client.send_key_to_telegram(private_key_request)
            return result
        except Exception as e:
            return [{"error": str(e)}]
  • Core implementation in ArmorWalletAPIClient: prepares payload from PrivateKeyRequest and makes POST API call to '/users/telegram/send-message/' endpoint.
    async def send_key_to_telegram(self, data: PrivateKeyRequest) -> Dict:
        """Send the mnemonic or private key to telegram."""
        payload = data.model_dump(exclude_none=True)
        return await self._api_call("POST", f"users/telegram/send-message/", payload)
  • Pydantic input schema model defining 'wallet' (str) and 'key_type' (Literal['PRIVATE_KEY', 'MNEMONIC']).
    class PrivateKeyRequest(BaseModel):
        wallet: str = Field(description="Name of the wallet to get the mnemonic or private key for")
        key_type: Literal['PRIVATE_KEY', 'MNEMONIC'] = Field(description="Whether to return the private or mnemonic key")
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions sending sensitive data (mnemonic/private key) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: security risks, authentication requirements, where in Telegram it sends (DM/bot/channel), confirmation steps, or rate limits. For a high-risk operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. Every word contributes to the core purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the essential action, though brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given high complexity (sensitive financial operation), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address security, authentication, Telegram destination, error conditions, or confirmation mechanisms. The output schema existence doesn't compensate for missing critical behavioral context for this high-risk tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'mnemonic or private key' which hints at the key_type parameter, and 'wallet' is implied but not explicitly named. However, it doesn't explain the nested 'private_key_request' structure, the required wallet name format, or the enum values for key_type. Partial compensation but significant gaps remain.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Send the mnemonic or private key to telegram' states the action (send) and resource (mnemonic/private key) but is vague about what 'to telegram' means - whether it's a chat, bot, or channel. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'transfer_tokens' or 'create_wallet' which also involve wallet operations, though the specific key-sending purpose is somewhat clearer than a tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected Telegram account), security implications, or when to choose this over other wallet-related tools like 'get_wallet_token_balance' or 'create_wallet'. The description provides zero contextual usage information.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/armorwallet/armor-crypto-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server