AgentWallet MCP Server

delete_wallet

Soft-delete a wallet by ID so it no longer appears in listings or can be used for transactions; the wallet is read first to ensure only valid wallets are removed.

Instructions

Delete (soft-delete) a wallet. The wallet will no longer appear in listings and cannot be used for transactions. The wallet is read first and the delete names its address, so a wallet that cannot be read is never deleted.

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": {
      "wallet_id": "<wallet_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wallet_id`	Yes	Wallet ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.8Oct 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / wallet_id / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / wallet_id / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
First observedv1.7.3Mar 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the soft-delete nature, the downstream effects (excluded from listings, unusable for transactions), and a read-before-delete precondition that prevents blind deletion. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is reversible/restorable or what permissions are required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and destructive semantics before the details. Every sentence adds information; only the slightly awkward "the delete names its address" phrasing costs a point.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: soft-delete, effects, and the read-gate safeguard. Missing only reversibility/restore guidance and permission or error expectations.

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?

Single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a safety nuance (the wallet is read first, so an unreadable wallet is never deleted) but describes it in terms of an "address" rather than the wallet_id parameter, which slightly muddies rather than clarifies parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Delete (soft-delete) a wallet") and clarifies the soft-delete semantics, which is the key distinction an agent needs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling mutations like pause_wallet or unpause_wallet, which are the obvious non-destructive alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the stated effects (wallet disappears from listings, cannot transact), so an agent can infer "use when the wallet is no longer needed". But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to pause_wallet as the reversible alternative.

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