get_walletsRetrieve approved WalletChan RPC accounts and configured chains, or validate a specific chain by name or ID. Use it to confirm available wallets and networks for onchain actions before execution.
Get approved WalletChan RPC accounts and configured chains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Optional chain name or chain ID to validate against the configured WalletChan RPC chains. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of auth/permission requirements, whether it is a safe read, what 'approved' means, or what the response contains. 'Get' weakly implies read-only, but that is inference, not disclosure.
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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why coverage elsewhere is thin.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque domain concept ('WalletChan RPC accounts'), the description is too thin to let an agent call it confidently. It leaves undefined what is returned, whether an empty result is meaningful, and how it relates to the other wallet-list tools.
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 the sole 'chain' parameter (name or ID, used to validate against configured RPC chains) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at baseline 3.
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 verb 'Get' plus the resource 'approved WalletChan RPC accounts and configured chains' gives a rough idea of purpose, but the concept of an 'RPC account' versus the many other wallet-listing siblings (agent_list_wallets, agent_get_wallet, veil_get_balances) is never disambiguated. An agent cannot tell from this sentence which wallet universe this returns or how it differs from agent_list_wallets.
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 guidance on when to call this versus the numerous alternative wallet/chain listing tools in the sibling set. The optional chain parameter hints at a validation use case, but the description states no conditions for use or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.