Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Algorand MCP

Algorand MCP

by GoPlausible
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sign_bytes

Sign hexadecimal bytes using a secret key for Algorand blockchain transactions. This tool generates cryptographic signatures required for network authentication and secure operations.

Instructions

Sign bytes with a secret key

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bytes": "<bytes>",
      "sk": "<sk>"
    },
    "name": "sign_bytes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bytesYesBytes in hexadecimal format to sign
skYesSecret key in hexadecimal format to sign the bytes with
networkNoAlgorand network to use (default: mainnet)
itemsPerPageNoNumber of items per page for paginated responses (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.1.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool signs bytes but lacks behavioral details such as the signing algorithm (e.g., Ed25519), output format (e.g., signature in hex), security implications (e.g., secret key exposure risks), or error handling. This is inadequate for a cryptographic operation with no annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a cryptographic signing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the signing algorithm, output format, security considerations, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (bytes, sk, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between bytes and sk or the purpose of network in signing. Baseline 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.

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Sign bytes with a secret key' clearly states the action (sign) and target (bytes), but it's vague about the cryptographic context (e.g., digital signatures for authentication/verification) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'sign_transaction' or 'verify_bytes', which are related but serve different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a secret key), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'sign_transaction' (for transactions) or 'verify_bytes' (for verification), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools