Export and back up a wallet's saved private key and mnemonic only when the user explicitly asks to view or back up the key, then warn them to keep it secret.
Reveal and back up the saved private key + mnemonic. ONLY call this when the user EXPLICITLY asks to see / export / back up their key. Then warn them to keep it secret.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | which wallet; defaults to the active wallet |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety/mutation profile is already covered. The description adds the sensitivity dimension annotations cannot express: it exposes a private key + mnemonic and instructs the agent to warn the user to keep it secret. It stops short of stating whether the secret is displayed only locally, logged, or persisted, which is the one behavioral gap left.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical usage constraint. No filler, no restating of the title, every clause carries weight.
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 zero-required-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned, when it may be called, and the required user warning. It is only slightly incomplete in not clarifying whether the revealed secret is shown in-conversation versus written to disk, which matters for a secret-exposing operation.
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% and the single 'address' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description is not obligated to explain it. It adds no syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema already says ('defaults to the active wallet'), so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource pair ('Reveal and back up the saved private key + mnemonic') and names the exact artifacts returned. It is immediately distinguishable from read-only siblings like agentscoin_balance or agentscoin_token_info, which surface public data rather than secrets.
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?
Gives an explicit, unambiguous gating condition: 'ONLY call this when the user EXPLICITLY asks to see / export / back up their key.' That functions as both when-to-use and when-not-to-use (never call proactively), which is exactly the guidance needed for a sensitive-secret tool with no sibling alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.