View locally stored wallets and identify the active one for autonomous pay and publish operations.
List locally stored Apiosk wallets and show which one is active for autonomous pay and publish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about local storage scope and the active-wallet selection behavior, going beyond what annotations provide, though edge cases like an empty wallet store are not addressed.
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 a clear verb and no filler. It efficiently conveys the operation, the resource scope, and the distinguishing active-wallet detail.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool. The only notable gap is the lack of disambiguation from the similarly named sibling apiosk_list_wallets, which could cause incorrect tool selection.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies what the output represents (wallets plus the active one), adding semantic value beyond the empty input schema.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List locally stored Apiosk wallets' and adds the specific behavior of showing which one is active for autonomous pay and publish. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling 'apiosk_list_wallets', so an agent could confuse the two.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apiosk_list_wallets or apiosk_wallet_select. Multiple wallet-related siblings exist, and the description does not state any exclusionary conditions or context-based recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.