AgentWallet MCP Server

get_chains

List all supported chains (EVM + Solana) with their chain IDs, native tokens, stablecoins, and RPC configuration status.

Instructions

List all supported chains (EVM + Solana) with their chain IDs, native tokens, stablecoins, and RPC configuration status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_chains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.2Oct 14, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv1.7.3Mar 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, and the description usefully discloses the fields returned, but it says nothing about whether the registry is static or live, whether RPC status can change, or about caching/pagination behavior.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the payload contents. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and no parameters, the description does the work of describing the return payload (chain IDs, native tokens, stablecoins, RPC config status), which is adequate. Minor gaps remain about list ordering/completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all supported chains'), then enumerates what each entry contains (chain IDs, native tokens, stablecoins, RPC status). No sibling tool in the list overlaps with chain discovery, so the purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to discover which chains are supported before doing chain-dependent work. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, but there is also no competing alternative that would need to be excluded.

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