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., "@Web3 Assistant MCP call the balanceOf method on this USDC contract: 0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48"
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.
A secure blockchain smart contract interaction toolkit with multi-chain support.
📑 Smart Contract ABI Analysis
📡 Contract Method Invocation (view/nonpayable/payable)
🔑 Local Wallet Address Management
🌐 Multi-chain Support
Related MCP server: Blockchain Payment MCP Server
web3-assistant-mcp/
├── src/
│ ├── common/
│ │ ├── clients/ # Blockchain client implementations
│ │ ├── constants/ # Network configurations
│ │ ├── services/ # Core services (contract, wallet)
│ │ └── utils/ # Helper functions
│ ├── tools/ # MCP tool implementations
│ └── types/ # TypeScript type definitions
├── test/ # Test suites
├── .env.example # Environment template
└── smithery.yaml # MCP server configurationNode.js 18+
pnpm
Configure environment variables (copy .env.example):
cp .env.example .envpnpm installpnpm build{
"mcpServers": {
"web3-assistant": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"***/dist/index.js"
],
"env": {
"ALCHEMY_KEY": "your_alchemy_key",
"INFURA_KEY": "your_infura_key",
"ANKR_KEY": "your_ankr_key",
"PRIVATE_KEY": "your_wallet_private_key"
}
}
}
}Path Note: When using MCP locally, replace *** with the absolute path to your MCP server directory.
{
"abi": "[Contract ABI JSON string]"
}Features:
Parse contract ABI and list callable methods
Auto-detect method types (view/pure/payable)
Input/output parameter types
State mutability
{
"abi": "[Method ABI]",
"networkName": "base|baseSepolia",
"contractAddress": "0x...",
"functionName": "methodName",
"args": ["param1", param2],
"value": 0.001 // ETH amount for payable methods (in ETH)
}Supported Operations:
Read contract state (view/pure)
Send transactions (nonpayable)
Token transfers (payable)
No parameters required:
{
"address": "0x..."
}Pre-configured networks in src/common/constants/networks:
mainnet: Ethereum Mainnet
sepolia: Ethereum Sepolia
base: Base Mainnet
baseSepolia: Base Testnet
Private Key Management: Configure via environment variables
Transaction Verification: Confirm details for payable methods
Gas Limits: Automatic safe gas calculation
Analyze the functions provided in the solidity contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| abi | Yes | Solidity contract ABI JSON string. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'analyze' but doesn't explain what analysis entails (e.g., parsing, validation, extracting metadata), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what the output might look like. 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by specifying what 'analyze' means, but overall it's appropriately sized and structured.
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 analyzing contract ABIs (which can involve parsing JSON, extracting function signatures, etc.), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the full scope and expected outcomes of the tool.
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 'abi' parameter documented as 'Solidity contract ABI JSON string.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 action ('analyze') and target ('functions in the solidity contract'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'call_contract' or 'local_wallet_address', which appear to be related but distinct operations in a blockchain context.
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 an ABI), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'call_contract' (which might execute functions) or 'local_wallet_address' (which might handle wallet operations).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Call a function in the solidity contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| abi | Yes | Contract function ABI part, only the relevant function. | |
| networkName | Yes | Blockchain network name. | |
| contractAddress | Yes | Contract address, must start with '0x' and be 40 hex characters long. | |
| functionName | Yes | Function name. | |
| args | No | Function arguments. Make sure no comments are included. | |
| value | No | Transfer native token value when calling payable function. When native token decimal is 18, input 0.001 for 0.001 ETH (1000000000000000 wei). Be careful not to add additional code comments |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions 'call a function' which implies execution, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only view call versus a state-changing transaction, gas costs, error handling, or security considerations. The description is insufficient for a mutation-capable 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 that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 complex blockchain interaction tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what type of function call this performs (view vs. transaction), what happens on success/failure, return values, or security implications. The description should provide much more context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value like explaining parameter relationships or usage patterns.
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 action ('call a function') and target ('in the solidity contract'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_contract_abi or local_wallet_address, 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. There's no mention of when to choose call_contract over analyze_contract_abi or local_wallet_address, nor any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios for contract function calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the local wallet evm address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the address is returned in. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with wallet data.
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.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or error handling, which could be important for wallet operations.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('local wallet evm address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_contract_abi' or 'call_contract', which have different functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling differentiation.
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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0analyze_contract_abicall_contractlocal_wallet_addressScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyze_contract_abi is for inspecting contract functions, call_contract is for executing functions, and local_wallet_address is for retrieving wallet information. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these tools.
The tools follow a consistent snake_case naming convention, but the naming pattern is not perfectly uniform: analyze_contract_abi and call_contract use verb_noun format, while local_wallet_address is a noun phrase. This minor deviation keeps it mostly consistent.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a 'Web3 Assistant' domain, which typically involves more operations like deploying contracts, checking balances, or interacting with blockchains. While the tools cover some basics, the count is borderline for the apparent scope.
There are significant gaps in the tool surface for Web3/blockchain interactions. Missing are essential operations such as deploying contracts, reading blockchain data (e.g., balances, transactions), or sending transactions. This incompleteness will likely cause agent failures in common workflows.
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.
Resolve any EVM contract ABI (even unverified, via decompilation), read, simulate, prepare txs.
Provide AI agents and automation tools with contextual access to blockchain data including balance…
