bca-mcp

translate_contract

Translate a smart contract between programming languages such as Solidity, Vyper, Move, and Rust/Anchor. Provide the source code and specify the source and target languages to get the converted contract.

Instructions

Translate a smart contract between languages (Solidity ↔ Vyper ↔ Move ↔ Anchor). Required: source_code, source_language, target_language. Async, Team tier.

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": {
      "source_code": "<source_code>",
      "source_language": "<source_language>",
      "target_language": "<target_language>"
    },
    "name": "translate_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source_code`	Yes	Source contract code.
`source_language`	Yes	Source contract language.
`target_language`	Yes	Target contract language.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1May 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Async, Team tier' but lacks details on response behavior, error handling, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely has important behavioral nuances.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, supported languages, required inputs, and async nature. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description omits crucial details: return format, potential errors, rate limits, and how the async behavior works. Compared to siblings that often include more context, this is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the required parameters and language list but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states the tool translates smart contracts between specific languages (Solidity, Vyper, Move, Anchor). The verb 'translate' and resource 'smart contract' are precise, and the bidirectional arrow distinguishes it from siblings like scan_contract or check_exploit_history.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description lists required parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or context where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

Deploy Server