Gemini Crypto

Network

network

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the blockchain network name for a Gemini-listed token (e.g. btc → bitcoin, eth → ethereum). Use to resolve deposit/withdrawal network before on-chain operations.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	No
`network`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / network

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / networks

Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "properties": {
-      "is_deposit_enabled": {
-        "description": "Whether deposits are enabled",
-        "type": "boolean"
-      },
-      "is_withdrawal_enabled": {
-        "description": "Whether withdrawals are enabled",
-        "type": "boolean"
-      },
-      "min_withdrawal_amount": {
-        "description": "Minimum withdrawal amount",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "network_code": {
-        "description": "Network code identifier",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "withdrawal_fee": {
-        "description": "Withdrawal fee",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / token
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 27, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "token": "ETH"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "networks": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "is_deposit_enabled": {
+            "description": "Whether deposits are enabled",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "is_withdrawal_enabled": {
+            "description": "Whether withdrawals are enabled",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "min_withdrawal_amount": {
+            "description": "Minimum withdrawal amount",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "network_code": {
+            "description": "Network code identifier",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "withdrawal_fee": {
+            "description": "Withdrawal fee",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the mapping semantics and the pre-on-chain-operation context; it says nothing about lookup failures, unmapped tokens, or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences: the what and the example mapping are front-loaded, and the when-to-use clause follows. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary. The description covers input format, scope (Gemini-listed), and purpose, needing only minor clarity on token casing and failure behavior to be fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the bare 'token' parameter relies on the description for meaning, and the examples (btc → bitcoin, eth → ethereum) do convey the expected symbol format. However, they conflict slightly with the schema example ('ETH' uppercase), leaving the accepted casing ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb and resource (return the blockchain network name for a token) and scopes it to 'Gemini-listed' tokens, with concrete mapping examples (btc → bitcoin). It is clearly distinct from siblings like symbols or ticker, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use to resolve deposit/withdrawal network before on-chain operations' gives a clear, actionable trigger for calling this tool. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or what alternative to pick, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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

All Gemini Crypto tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.