Skip to main content
Glama
chainfetch

ChainFETCH MCP Server

Official
by chainfetch

search_addresses_semantic

Find Ethereum addresses using AI-powered semantic search that understands natural language queries and matches based on meaning rather than exact text.

Instructions

Semantic search for Ethereum addresses using AI-powered vector similarity matching

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe query to search for
limitNoThe number of results to return (default: 10)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'search_addresses_semantic' tool. It forwards the tool arguments to the ChainFetch API's semantic search endpoint for Ethereum addresses via the shared makeRequest method.
    case 'search_addresses_semantic':
      return await this.makeRequest('/api/v1/ethereum/addresses/semantic_search', 'GET', args, null, token);
  • index.js:41-59 (registration)
    Tool registration entry in the listTools response, including name, description, and input schema definition.
    {
      name: 'search_addresses_semantic',
      description: 'Semantic search for Ethereum addresses using AI-powered vector similarity matching',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          query: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The query to search for',
          },
          limit: {
            type: 'integer',
            description: 'The number of results to return (default: 10)',
            default: 10,
          },
        },
        required: ['query'],
      },
    },
  • Input schema definition for the search_addresses_semantic tool, specifying query (required) and optional limit parameters.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        query: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'The query to search for',
        },
        limit: {
          type: 'integer',
          description: 'The number of results to return (default: 10)',
          default: 10,
        },
      },
      required: ['query'],
    },
  • Shared helper method used by all tools, including search_addresses_semantic, to make authenticated API requests to the ChainFetch backend.
    async makeRequest(endpoint, method = 'GET', params = {}, body = null, token = null) {
      const chainfetchToken = token || process.env.CHAINFETCH_API_TOKEN;
      
      if (!chainfetchToken) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidRequest,
          'CHAINFETCH_API_TOKEN is required'
        );
      }
    
      const url = new URL(`${API_BASE_URL}${endpoint}`);
      
      // Add query parameters for GET requests
      if (method === 'GET' && Object.keys(params).length > 0) {
        Object.entries(params).forEach(([key, value]) => {
          if (value !== undefined && value !== null) {
            if (Array.isArray(value)) {
              value.forEach(v => url.searchParams.append(`${key}[]`, v));
            } else {
              url.searchParams.append(key, value.toString());
            }
          }
        });
      }
    
      const fetchOptions = {
        method,
        headers: {
          'Authorization': `Bearer ${chainfetchToken}`,
          'Content-Type': 'application/json',
        },
      };
    
      if (body && method !== 'GET') {
        fetchOptions.body = JSON.stringify(body);
      }
    
      const response = await fetch(url.toString(), fetchOptions);
      
      if (!response.ok) {
        const errorText = await response.text();
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `API request failed: ${response.status} ${response.statusText} - ${errorText}`
        );
      }
    
      return await response.json();
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the search method. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is read-only (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (no output schema).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'semantic' match, how results are ranked, what fields are returned, or error conditions. Given the complexity of semantic search and lack of structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., query format examples, limit constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('semantic search') and resource ('Ethereum addresses'), and specifies the method ('AI-powered vector similarity matching'). It distinguishes from non-search siblings but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search_addresses_* tools like search_addresses_json or search_addresses_llm, which would require a 5.

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 like search_addresses_json or search_addresses_llm. The description mentions the method but doesn't explain when semantic search is preferable over other search types or direct lookup tools like get_address_info.

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/chainfetch/chainfetch-mcp-server'

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