Apiosk MCP Server

apiosk_create_wallet

Create or import a managed wallet for the signed-in user, then set USDC daily and per-transaction limits for paying API calls.

Instructions

Create or import a managed Apiosk wallet for the signed-in user.

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": {
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "apiosk_create_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No
`label`	Yes
`secret`	No	Private key or recovery phrase when importing.
`daily_limit_usdc`	No
`per_tx_limit_usdc`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds useful context by saying the wallet is 'managed' and 'for the signed-in user,' and it does not contradict the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond creation/import, such as whether a secret is generated or stored, or how imported secrets are handled.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Annotations and the output schema cover some burden, but the description omits usage-selection guidance and parameter semantics. For a tool with 5 parameters and many wallet-related siblings, this is too sparse to confidently guide correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description provides no parameter-level explanation. It does not clarify the mode enum values, the requirement for label, or the meaning of daily_limit_usdc and per_tx_limit_usdc, so the agent gets little help beyond the bare parameter names.

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 states a clear action ('create or import') and a specific resource ('managed Apiosk wallet') scoped to the signed-in user. This largely distinguishes it from wallet listing, deletion, and secret-reveal tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named apiosk_wallet_create sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as apiosk_wallet_create, apiosk_wallet_save_secret, or apiosk_create_wallet_connect_string. The description only names the operation and gives no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions.

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

Deploy Server