Wallet MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wallet_import

Import a private key for a specified blockchain, encrypt it with a password, and store it in the keystore for later transaction signing.

Instructions

Import an existing private key, encrypt it, and store it in the keystore.

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "privateKey": "<privateKey>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "wallet_import"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes	Chain ID (ambient, solana, bsc, arbitrum)
`label`	No	Optional label for the wallet
`password`	Yes	Encryption password for the keystore
`privateKey`	Yes	Private key in chain-native format (hex for EVM, base58 for SVM)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the internal pipeline (encrypt then persist to keystore), which is real behavioral context beyond the name, but it omits security-relevant traits: overwrite/duplicate-label behavior, password strength requirements, and whether the plaintext key is ever retained.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the operation and its side effects. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

For a security-sensitive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves out key operational details (overwrite semantics, error conditions, key validation) that an agent would need before invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (chain, label, password, privateKey) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb chain (import, encrypt, store) and names the resource (private key / keystore), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like wallet_generate or wallet_export, but the action is distinct enough to disambiguate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of wallet_generate (the obvious alternative for obtaining a wallet) or any prerequisites/exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the sibling names alone.

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

Deploy Server