Wallet MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wallet_sign_message

Sign arbitrary UTF-8 messages using a stored wallet and keystore password to authenticate data or prove wallet ownership.

Instructions

Sign an arbitrary message with a stored wallet.

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": {
      "walletId": "<walletId>",
      "password": "<password>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "wallet_sign_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Message to sign (UTF-8 text)
`password`	Yes	Keystore password to decrypt the private key
`walletId`	Yes	Wallet ID (UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 but only states that signing occurs with a stored wallet. It does not mention the password requirement for decrypting the private key, what happens after signing, or any security or side-effect considerations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though its extreme brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and usage context.

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?

For a simple three-parameter signing tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate to infer the core operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., a signature) and any usage context, leaving clear gaps.

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 all three parameters (walletId, password, message) are already explained in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Sign) and resource (an arbitrary message with a stored wallet), making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as wallet_sign_transaction, leaving differentiation to the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like wallet_sign_transaction or wallet_send_transaction. The description only implies usage from the operation itself, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server