Skip to main content
Glama
CryptoAPIs-io

@cryptoapis-io/mcp-prepare-transactions

Official
by CryptoAPIs-io
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.3.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are completely distinct: one prepares unsigned EVM transactions with clear sub-actions, the other provides static system reference information. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names use snake_case and are descriptive, but the pattern differs slightly: 'prepare_transactions_evm' is verb_noun while 'system_info' is noun_noun. This is a minor deviation but not confusing given the small set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels slightly thin for a general-purpose service, but the main tool (prepare_transactions_evm) bundles multiple transaction types, and system_info serves as a useful reference. The count is acceptable for a focused transaction preparation server.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the essential EVM transaction preparation scenarios: native transfers, ERC-20 transfers, and NFT transfers. It lacks more advanced options like contract calls or multi-sig transactions, but for a prepare-only tool, the core lifecycle is well covered.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns the raw unsigned transaction hex and fee details, and it implies the operation has no on-chain side effects ('ready for signing'). It also adds credit cost details, which is useful context. It does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., authentication, rate limits), but it covers the essential nature of the operation.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is well-structured: it starts with a clear one-sentence overview, then lists the three actions with brief explanations, and finally includes credit information. It is concise enough for the complexity it covers, though the credit section could be trimmed if not essential, but it does contribute operational context.

    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?

    The tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, yet the description gives sufficient context: it names the three actions, describes the expected output (transaction hex and fee details), and outlines the follow-up steps for signing and broadcasting. It does not provide examples or error handling details, but for correct invocation it is reasonably 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?

    The schema provides descriptions for 100% of the parameters, including which actions they apply to. The tool description adds value by explaining what each action does, but it does not add meaning for individual parameters beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, this baseline of 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Build unsigned EVM transactions ready for signing.' It lists three specific actions (native transfer, ERC-20 transfer, NFT transfer), which distinguishes it from downstream signing and broadcasting tools. The mention of the prepare-sign-broadcast workflow further differentiates its scope.

    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?

    The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: before signing locally via a tool like evm_sign, and before broadcasting via broadcast_signed_transaction. It gives a clear sequential workflow but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative preparation tools, so it falls slightly 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.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that no API call is made and no credits are consumed, and it details what each action returns. It does not mention response format or potential side effects, but for a pure documentation tool this is sufficient.

    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?

    The description is well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of actions. Each bullet is concise and informative, with no wasted words.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    For a documentation tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers all available actions, their content, and the tool's non-executing nature, leaving no ambiguity for an agent.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    The input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant meaning by detailing what each enum action returns (e.g., blockchains -> supported chains, errors -> error table, credits -> cost structure). This goes beyond the schema's generic description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states it is 'CryptoAPIs reference documentation' and enumerates the exact topics (blockchains, errors, credits, callbacks, limits). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool prepare_transactions_evm, which handles transaction preparation.

    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?

    The description implies usage for retrieving reference information and explicitly notes 'no API call, no credits consumed', making it clear this is a documentation tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions, only relying on the obvious contrast with the sibling.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

cryptoapis-mcp-prepare-transactions MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

cryptoapis-mcp-prepare-transactions MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CryptoAPIs-io/cryptoapis-mcp-prepare-transactions'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server