Create a new multi-chain keypair, encrypt the private key with a password, and store it in the local keystore for signing and sending transactions.
Generate a new keypair, encrypt it with the provided password, and store it in the keystore.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain ID (ambient, solana, bsc, arbitrum) | |
| label | No | Optional label for the wallet | |
| password | Yes | Encryption password for the keystore |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the meaningful traits: a new keypair is created, the password is used for encryption, and the result persists in the keystore. It stops short of covering the risk profile an agent needs — whether creation is irreversible, whether the private key or address is returned, overwrite behavior, or password requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence stating action, transformation, and destination with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Wait — no output schema exists, and the description never says what the tool returns (address, public key, derived path), which an agent needs after creation. For a mutation with no annotations this is a gap, though the core operation is otherwise fully specified.
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 description coverage is 100%, so chain, label, and password are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a reinforcing note that the password encrypts the keystore, which is marginal added value over the structured fields — the baseline for full coverage.
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 names a concrete verb+resource ('Generate a new keypair') and enumerates the full pipeline (encrypt, store in keystore), so an agent immediately understands this creates a brand-new wallet. It implicitly separates itself from wallet_import (existing keys) but never names that sibling or any other, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative wallet_import for bringing in an existing key, and no prerequisites beyond the inline password reference. The agent must infer the generation-vs-import decision entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.