Apiosk MCP Server

apiosk_update_wallet

Idempotent

Modify wallet label, status, display metadata, and set daily or per-transaction spending limits.

Instructions

Update wallet label, status, display metadata, or spending limits.

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": "apiosk_update_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`icon`	No
`color`	No
`label`	No
`status`	No
`wallet_id`	Yes
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds a light hint about modification scope, but it does not explain side effects such as whether pausing or revoking a wallet disables it, or whether the update is partial or a full replacement.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of needed detail.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover some ground, but the tool has 7 undocumented parameters and an ambiguous sibling relationship. Missing update semantics, status implications, and parameter details make the description incomplete for reliable 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?

The input schema has zero property descriptions across 7 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden. It only groups a few parameters semantically ('display metadata', 'spending limits') and leaves units, value constraints, and relationships between fields unexplained.

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 ('update') and resource ('wallet'), and enumerates the update surface: label, status, display metadata, and spending limits. It does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling apiosk_wallet_update, but the scope is still concrete enough to orient an agent.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. This is especially problematic because apiosk_wallet_update is a sibling with nearly the same name, leaving selection ambiguous.

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

Deploy Server