AgentWallet MCP Server

unpause_wallet

Resume a paused wallet to restore transaction signing. Provide the wallet ID to re-enable signing operations.

Instructions

Resume a paused wallet so transactions can be signed again.

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": "unpause_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key effect (re-enables transaction signing), which is genuine value, but says nothing about idempotency, behavior when the wallet is not paused, required authorization, or whether any pending state changes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the effect is stated immediately after the action.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect but leaves outcome/error behavior and authorization implicit, which is more than trivially adequate but short of complete.

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% with a single documented wallet_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further semantics about the identifier beyond what the schema already states.

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 (resume/unpause) and resource (wallet) plus the concrete effect: transactions can be signed again. An agent can distinguish it from pause_wallet by inversion, though the sibling is not named.

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 only implied: call this on a wallet that is currently paused. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (ownership/permissions), no guidance on when not to call it, and no reference to alternatives like pause_wallet for reference.

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