Retrieve all keys stored in the wallet, with optional filtering by name or keyCode, pagination, and sort direction. Use it to browse and inspect wallet keys without manual lookups.
List all keys in the wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by key name (max 32 chars) | |
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| size | No | Page size (default: 10) | |
| keyCode | No | Filter by keyCode (max 32 chars) | |
| orderDirection | No | Sort direction |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior (despite page/size parameters), result ordering, or permissions, leaving the agent to infer that this is a safe enumeration.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined pruning.
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?
For a paginated, filterable list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits how results are returned, what pagination does, and how filters interact. The schema covers parameters, but the agent still lacks operational context such as default ordering and result shape.
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 five parameters including enum-constrained orderDirection are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about filtering, pagination, or sorting, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource ('List all keys in the wallet'), which is clear enough to distinguish a bulk listing from get_key. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from key-related siblings such as get_key or list_addresses, so the agent must infer the distinction.
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 mention of when to prefer get_key or create_key, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.