Create a new Ethereum wallet for the authenticated user with a required name and optional remark, category, or description. Use it to set up and organize a wallet for tracking or transactions.
Create a new Ethereum wallet for the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Wallet name. | |
| remark | No | Optional remark. | |
| category | No | Optional category. | |
| description | No | Optional wallet description. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the wallet is Ethereum-based and tied to the authenticated user, which is useful context, but it omits key behavior: whether a keypair is generated, whether names must be unique, and what happens on failure.
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 with zero filler and no repetition of the tool name. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no output schema, so the description should say what the caller receives back (wallet address, id, key material) and whether the operation has side effects like key generation. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to anticipate the result of a create call.
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 all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that — nothing about the purpose of 'name' as an identifier, uniqueness constraints, or how 'category' and 'description' are used.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Ethereum wallet') and scopes it to the authenticated user, which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like list_wallets and get_balance. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the vague phrase 'for the authenticated user', and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it (e.g., duplicate wallet names, per-chain limits). An agent must infer the calling context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.