Skip to main content
Glama

web3_sha3

Generate Keccak-256 cryptographic hash for Ethereum data using hex string input to secure and verify blockchain transactions and smart contracts.

Instructions

Returns Keccak-256 hash of the given data

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData to hash (hex string starting with 0x)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the web3_sha3 tool. It takes hex data input, calls the RPC web3_sha3 method, formats the hash result, and handles errors.
    async ({ data }) => {
      try {
        const result = await makeRPCCall("web3_sha3", [data]);
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: formatResponse(result, "Keccak-256 Hash"),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Error: ${error.message}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    },
  • Input schema using Zod for the data parameter: a hex string starting with 0x.
      data: z.string().describe("Data to hash (hex string starting with 0x)"),
    },
  • src/index.ts:128-133 (registration)
    Registration of the web3_sha3 tool via server.tool, including name, description, and schema.
    server.tool(
      "web3_sha3",
      "Returns Keccak-256 hash of the given data",
      {
        data: z.string().describe("Data to hash (hex string starting with 0x)"),
      },
  • Helper function used by the handler to perform the actual RPC call to the Ethereum provider.
    async function makeRPCCall(method: string, params: any[] = []): Promise<any> {
      try {
        const result = await provider.send(method, params);
        return result;
      } catch (error: any) {
        throw new Error(`RPC call failed: ${error.message}`);
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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 basic function but lacks details on performance, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., input size limits, rate limits). For a cryptographic tool, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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 precise terminology ('Keccak-256'), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the hash algorithm's specifics or common use cases, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 already fully documents the single parameter 'data'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('Keccak-256 hash of the given data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like other hashing functions, but the specificity of 'Keccak-256' helps distinguish it from general hash operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or suggest contexts where Keccak-256 hashing is appropriate, 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

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/JamesANZ/evm-mcp'

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