The Veri5ight MCP Server enables direct interaction between Claude and Ethereum nodes for real-time blockchain data access without API rate limits. You can:
Get recent transactions for any Ethereum address/ENS name
Check ERC20 token balances for addresses
View delegation information for governance tokens
Retrieve detailed information about smart contracts
Access transaction details using transaction hashes
This provides low-latency, private, and unlimited access to Ethereum blockchain data.
Utilizes environment variables for configuration, particularly for setting up Ethereum node connection details securely.
Provides direct interface to Ethereum nodes, allowing access to token balances, contract information, transaction details, and delegation data without rate limits. Supports querying via ENS names or Ethereum addresses.
Enables source code management and version control for installing and contributing to the project.
Provides repository access for installation and contribution to the codebase via git clone from GitHub.
Uses npm for dependency management and build processes, with commands for installation and development.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Veri5ight MCP Server what's vitalik.eth's UNI token balance?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Your friendly neighborhood Ethereum node whisperer! A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that helps Claude chat with Ethereum nodes.
Veri5ight is a direct interface between Claude and Ethereum nodes, providing:
💰 Real-time token balance and delegation info for any ERC20
🔎 Smart contract information
🚀 Direct node access without rate limits
🔒 Private, secure interactions
Related MCP server: ENS MCP Server
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/5ajaki/veri5ight.git
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the project
npm run buildCopy .env.example to .env:
cp .env.example .envAdd your Ethereum node URL (example shown below - update with your actual node URL and port):
ETH_NODE_URL="http://localhost:8545" # Example - replace with your node's URL and portConfigure Claude Desktop:
{
"mcpServers": {
"veri5ight": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/veri5ight/dist/index.js"] // Local path to the compiled index.js file
}
}
}Note: The path in step 3 must point to the compiled index.js in your local dist directory. This is created when you run npm run build.
By default, Veri5ight launches automatically with the Claude Desktop App. If you prefer to run it on-demand:
Remove the postbuild script from package.json that auto-launches with Claude
Run manually when needed:
node dist/index.jsGet the token balance for any ERC20 token using address or ENS name.
Example:
Claude, what's vitalik.eth's UNI balance?Check delegation info for any governance token.
Example:
Claude, who has nick.eth delegated their tokens to?Get detailed information about any smart contract.
Example:
Claude, what can you tell me about this contract: nick.ethView recent transactions for any address. Note: This function scans the most recent 10 blocks for transactions involving the specified address.
Example:
Claude, show me any recent transactions for vitalik.ethThe function will return up to the requested number of transactions (default 3) found within those blocks. If no transactions are found in the recent blocks, it will return an empty result.
Check Claude's logs for any issues:
tail -n 20 -f ~/Library/Logs/Claude/mcp*.logLow Latency: Direct node queries without API overhead
No Rate Limits: Unlimited queries to your own node
Privacy: Queries stay between you and your node
Full Access: Complete JSON-RPC API availability
Real-time Data: Direct access to latest blockchain state
# Watch mode for the cool kids
npm run dev
# Build for production
npm run buildGot ideas? Found a bug? PRs are welcome! Just:
Fork it
Branch it
Code it
PR it
MIT - Go wild! See LICENSE for the boring legal stuff.
Built with ❤️ by the Veri5ight team
Powered by Claude's big brain
Standing on the shoulders of Ethereum giants
🐛 Found a bug? Open an issue!
🤔 Questions? Start a discussion!
🎉 Cool feature idea? Let's hear it!
Remember: Veri5ight is like a Swiss Army knife for Ethereum data - just don't try to open bottles with it! 🍾
Get information about any contract
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Contract address or ENS name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get information' but doesn't clarify what type of information (e.g., ABI, bytecode, metadata), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., contract details, metadata), how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter documented as 'Contract address or ENS name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Get information about any contract' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('contract'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like ethereum_getTransactionInfo or ethereum_getTokenBalance, which also retrieve contract-related information. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what makes it distinct from sibling tools such as ethereum_getTransactionInfo or ethereum_getTokenDelegation, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Without this context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get recent transactions for an Ethereum address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Ethereum address or ENS name | |
| limit | No | Number of transactions to return (default: 3) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does without adding context. It does not mention rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or whether it queries a specific blockchain network (e.g., mainnet, testnet), leaving significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that fetches blockchain data. It does not cover return values (e.g., transaction format, timestamps), error cases, or network specifics, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in context with its siblings.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('address' and 'limit') with their types and defaults. The description does not add meaning beyond this, such as explaining ENS name resolution or transaction ordering, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent transactions for an Ethereum address'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ethereum_getTransactionInfo' (which might get details of a specific transaction), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'ethereum_getTransactionInfo' for detailed info on a single transaction. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get ERC20 token balance for an address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Ethereum address or ENS name | |
| token | Yes | Token contract address or ENS name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits like read-only nature, potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear terminology, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, which are crucial for a tool interacting with blockchain data. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps.
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 schema already documents both parameters ('address' and 'token') with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('ERC20 token balance for an address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ethereum_getContractInfo' or 'ethereum_getTokenDelegation', but the specificity of 'ERC20 token balance' helps distinguish it from general balance queries.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get delegation info for an ERC20 governance token
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Ethereum address or ENS name | |
| token | Yes | Token contract address or ENS name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the delegation info returns. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'delegation info' entails, how it's structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to fully understand its operation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('address' and 'token'). The description doesn't add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between the parameters or providing usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('delegation info for an ERC20 governance token'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'ethereum_getTokenBalance' or 'ethereum_getContractInfo', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios based solely on the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information about an Ethereum transaction
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Transaction hash |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, error handling). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of Ethereum transactions and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., block number, gas used, status), potential errors (e.g., invalid hash), or behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured output and no annotations, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'hash' parameter clearly documented as 'Transaction hash'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as hash format (e.g., 0x-prefixed hex) or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about an Ethereum transaction'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'ethereum_getRecentTransactions' or 'ethereum_getContractInfo', which also retrieve transaction-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a transaction hash), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'ethereum_getRecentTransactions' for recent transactions or 'ethereum_getContractInfo' for contract details. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0ethereum_getContractInfoethereum_getRecentTransactionsethereum_getTokenBalanceethereum_getTokenDelegationethereum_getTransactionInfoScored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different Ethereum data types: contract info, recent transactions, token balance, token delegation, and transaction details. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.
All tools follow a consistent 'ethereum_verbNoun' pattern with snake_case, using descriptive verbs like 'get' and specific nouns like 'ContractInfo' or 'TokenBalance'. This predictability enhances usability.
Five tools is a reasonable number for an Ethereum data server, covering key queries. It might be slightly thin for broader blockchain interactions, but it's well-scoped for its apparent purpose of retrieving specific Ethereum data.
The tools cover read operations for contracts, transactions, tokens, and delegation, but there are notable gaps such as write operations (e.g., sending transactions), broader blockchain state queries, or support for other token standards. Agents can work with the provided tools but may hit limitations.
Ethereum MCP: Chainlink feeds, gas, ERC-20, ENS, ABI, contract calls, ERC-8004, EAS.
Read-only on-chain intelligence for AI agents on Base: balances, tokens, gas, tx status.
Read-only on-chain intelligence for AI agents on Base: balances, tokens, gas, tx status.
Ethereum tools over MCP: Chainlink feeds, ENS, ERC-8004 agents, EAS attestations, transactions.