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., "@CryptoAPIs Contracts MCP Get token details for 0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48 on Ethereum mainnet"
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.
MCP server for Crypto APIs Contracts product. Get token details by contract address for EVM and Solana.
API Version: Compatible with Crypto APIs version 2024-12-12
EVM contracts: Get token details by contract address (blockchain, network, contractAddress)
Solana contracts: Get token details by contract address (network, contractAddress)
Related MCP server: dexscreener
npm install @cryptoapis-io/mcp-contractsOr install all Crypto APIs MCP servers: npm install @cryptoapis-io/mcp
# Run with API key
npx @cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts --api-key YOUR_API_KEY
# Or use environment variable
export CRYPTOAPIS_API_KEY=YOUR_API_KEY
npx @cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts
# HTTP transport (listens on 127.0.0.1; see "Exposing the server beyond localhost")
npx @cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts --transport http --port 3000 --api-key YOUR_API_KEYAdd to your Claude Desktop config (~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on macOS, %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json on Windows):
{
"mcpServers": {
"cryptoapis-contracts": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts"],
"env": {
"CRYPTOAPIS_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}Add to .cursor/mcp.json (project) or ~/.cursor/mcp.json (global):
{
"mcpServers": {
"cryptoapis-contracts": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts"],
"env": {
"CRYPTOAPIS_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector npx @cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts --api-key YOUR_API_KEYStart the server in HTTP mode:
npx @cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts --transport http --port 3000 --api-key YOUR_API_KEYIn your n8n workflow, add an AI Agent node
Under Tools, add an MCP Client Tool and set the URL to http://localhost:3000/mcp
n8n in Docker:
localhostinside the container is not your machine. Start the server with--host 0.0.0.0andMCP_AUTH_TOKENset (see Exposing the server beyond localhost), usehttp://host.docker.internal:3000/mcpas the URL, and add anAuthorization: Bearer <token>header to the MCP Client Tool credential.
All servers default to port 3000. Use
--portto assign different ports when running multiple servers.
evm_contract_dataGet token details by contract address.
Action | Description |
| Get token details (name, symbol, standard, decimals, totalSupply) by contract address |
Supported Blockchains: ethereum, ethereum-classic, binance-smart-chain (mainnet, mordor, testnet, sepolia)
Contract token details are currently available for Ethereum, Ethereum Classic, and BSC only.
solana_contract_dataGet Solana token details by contract address.
Action | Description |
| Get token details by contract address |
Supported Networks: mainnet, devnet
Argument | Description | Default |
| Crypto APIs API key |
|
| Transport type: |
|
| HTTP host (use |
|
| Bearer token callers must send ( |
|
| Comma-separated | — |
| HTTP port |
|
| HTTP path |
|
| Enable stateless HTTP mode |
|
When using HTTP transport, the server supports two API key modes:
With --api-key: The key is used for all requests. x-api-key request headers are ignored.
Without --api-key: Each request must include an x-api-key header with a valid Crypto APIs key. This enables hosting a public server where each user provides their own key.
# Per-request key mode (multi-tenant)
npx @cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts --transport http --port 3000
# Clients send x-api-key header with each requestHTTP mode listens on 127.0.0.1 by default, so only processes on the same machine can reach it.
To accept connections from other machines or containers, bind explicitly and protect the port:
# Startup-key mode: callers must present the token (the server refuses to start without one)
export MCP_AUTH_TOKEN=$(openssl rand -hex 32)
npx @cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts --transport http --host 0.0.0.0 --port 3000 --api-key YOUR_API_KEY \
--allowed-hosts mcp.internal.example
# Clients send: Authorization: Bearer $MCP_AUTH_TOKEN
# Per-request key mode: no startup key, every request must carry the caller's own x-api-key
npx @cryptoapis-io/mcp-contracts --transport http --host 0.0.0.0 --port 3000--allowed-hosts restricts the Host header (DNS rebinding protection) when not bound to loopback. Prefer MCP_AUTH_TOKEN over --auth-token: command-line arguments are visible in the process list.
Stdio transport always requires an API key at startup.
Warning: Making requests without a valid API key — or with an incorrect one — may result in your IP being banned from the Crypto APIs ecosystem. Always ensure a valid API key is configured before starting any server.
Crypto APIs provides an official remote MCP server with all tools available via HTTP Streamable transport at https://ai.cryptoapis.io/mcp. Pass your API key via the x-api-key header — no installation required.
MIT
Get EVM contract token details (Contracts product).
Actions: • get-token-details-by-contract-address: Get token details (name, symbol, standard, decimals, totalSupply) by contract address
Blockchain → Networks: • ethereum: mainnet, sepolia • ethereum-classic: mainnet, mordor • binance-smart-chain: mainnet, testnet
Credits by action (source: OpenAPI): • get-token-details-by-contract-address: binance-smart-chain 75, ethereum 30, ethereum-classic 39
Credits are indicative only and may change at any time. The actual credits spent for each API request are returned in the response headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform | |
| context | No | Optional context for the request - echoed back in response | |
| network | Yes | Network name | |
| blockchain | Yes | Blockchain protocol | |
| contractAddress | Yes | Contract address (token contract) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses per-blockchain credit costs and warns that credits are indicative, but 'Get' only implies a read-only operation and there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or reversibility. Credit disclosure is real added value without covering the rest of the behavioral profile.
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?
Well front-loaded: purpose first, then actions, then valid network combinations, then costs. The bulleted structure is easy to scan and every section is relevant. The credits block is somewhat verbose for its value, keeping it from a top score.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields for the action. Combined with the network/blockchain constraints and credit costs, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; the main gap is the absence of any error or failure behavior given there are no annotations.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by mapping which networks belong to which blockchain (e.g., ethereum-classic → mainnet, mordor) and attaching credit costs to the action per blockchain, which the raw enums do not convey.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get EVM contract token details') and enumerates the single supported action with its returned fields (name, symbol, standard, decimals, totalSupply). The 'EVM' qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling solana_contract_data.
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 blockchain→network mapping and per-action credit table effectively tell the agent which parameter combinations are valid and what each call costs, which implicitly guides usage. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over solana_contract_data or any condition under which it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get Solana contract token details (Contracts product).
Actions: • get-token-details-by-contract-address: Get token details by contract address
Networks: mainnet, devnet
Credits by action (source: OpenAPI): • get-token-details-by-contract-address: 75
Credits are indicative only and may change at any time. The actual credits spent for each API request are returned in the response headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform | |
| context | No | Optional context for the request - echoed back in response | |
| network | Yes | Network name: mainnet or devnet | |
| contractAddress | Yes | Contract address (token contract) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait: the 75-credit cost per action and the caveat that actual credits are returned in response headers. But it omits read-only confirmation, auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, so the disclosure is partial.
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 purpose and action are front-loaded with bulleted, scannable structure. The closing boilerplate about credits being indicative is somewhat verbose and could be trimmed, but it does not obscure the core information.
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 4-parameter, 3-required tool with no output schema, the description covers action, networks, and cost but says nothing about what 'token details' are returned. With no output schema to lean on, the return shape is left entirely to inference, leaving a real gap.
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 action, network, contractAddress, and context. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get Solana contract token details,' with the action 'get-token-details-by-contract-address' making the operation concrete. The 'Solana' scoping implicitly separates it from the sibling evm_contract_data, though it never names that sibling explicitly. Clear enough that an agent knows what it retrieves.
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?
Networks (mainnet, devnet) and the single available action are listed, which implicitly bounds when the tool applies. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite notes, and no routing advice versus the evm_contract_data sibling. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
CryptoAPIs reference documentation — no API call, no credits consumed.
Actions: • blockchains — Supported blockchains, networks, products per chain, denominations, fiat currencies • errors — Complete error code table (HTTP status, error code, message) • credits — Credit charging structure, cost multipliers per blockchain, monitoring & operations taxes (xPub, synced addresses, blockchain events), pay-as-you-go • callbacks — Webhook mechanics: URL requirements, retry strategy (5 retries, exponential backoff), HMAC security, idempotency • limits — Throughput soft/hard limits per plan, 2.1x penalty multiplier, rate limiting behavior
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Reference topic to retrieve | |
| context | No | Optional context for the request - echoed back in response |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly notes 'no API call, no credits consumed,' which is key behavioral information. It also discloses detailed content such as retry strategy, HMAC security, and rate-limit penalty multipliers, going well beyond a generic 'returns info' statement.
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 front-loaded with the critical 'no API call, no credits consumed' caveat and uses a compact bullet list. Each bullet covers a distinct action without wasted prose, making it highly scannable for an agent.
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 reference-documentation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete enough: it defines all five actions and gives sufficient detail about their content. It also clarifies side effects (none) and cost implications (none), covering the main contextual risks.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each allowed action enum value in detail (e.g., callbacks covers URL requirements, 5 retries, HMAC). This transforms enum names into actionable context and compensates fully beyond the schema's short parameter descriptions.
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 this is CryptoAPIs reference documentation with no API call or credits consumed, and enumerates five specific topics (blockchains, errors, credits, callbacks, limits). This clearly identifies it as an informational tool distinct from domain siblings like aml.
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 bulleted actions give clear contexts for when to use the tool, such as looking up error codes, credit structures, callback mechanics, or rate limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not specification.
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.
v0.4.0evm_contract_datasolana_contract_datasystem_infoScored across 3 tools
The tools are clearly separated by blockchain ecosystem: evm_contract_data, solana_contract_data, and system_info. The first two target different chains, and system_info is explicitly a reference tool with no API call, so an agent can easily select the correct tool.
All tool names use consistent snake_case and are descriptive. The two chain-specific tools follow the same [chain]_contract_data pattern, while system_info remains readable and consistent with the overall naming style.
Three tools is a small but workable set for a focused contract-data server. The two chain-specific tools earn their place, though the server feels slightly under-scoped for a product named 'Contracts MCP'.
The surface covers token details for EVM and Solana contracts and includes useful reference documentation. However, it lacks other contract-related operations such as ABI retrieval, event logs, or transfer queries, leaving notable gaps for broader contract analysis.
Query real-time blockchain token data across EVM and Solana networks. Access token balances, transfers, prices, holders, NFT ownership, DEX swaps, and liquidity pools. Supports Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, BSC, Polygon, Solana, and more.
Blockchain data across 100+ chains: token prices, NFTs, transfers, simulation, traces, Solana DAS
Blockchain analytics API for AI agents. Smart Money signals, wallet profiling, token analytics.
Blockchain analytics API for AI agents. Smart Money signals, wallet profiling, token analytics.
