AgentWallet MCP Server

unwrap_eth

Convert wrapped tokens such as WETH, WAVAX, and WBNB back to native tokens by specifying a human-readable amount, wallet ID, and chain ID.

Instructions

Unwrap wrapped tokens (WETH, WAVAX, WBNB, etc.) back to native tokens. Specify amount in human-readable format (e.g. "0.5" for 0.5 WETH).

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": {
      "wallet_id": "<wallet_id>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "chain_id": "<chain_id>"
    },
    "name": "unwrap_eth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount to unwrap in human-readable format (e.g. "0.5")
`chain_id`	Yes	Chain ID
`wallet_id`	Yes	Wallet ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.14.8Oct 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / chain_id / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / chain_id / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / wallet_id / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / wallet_id / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
First observedv1.7.3Mar 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core token conversion and amount format, but omits critical behavioral context for a transactional tool: whether the wallet must already hold the wrapped token, gas requirements, irreversible execution, chain-specific behavior, and what the caller should expect on failure.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The core action is stated first and the amount formatting hint follows immediately.

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 3-parameter transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and amount format but leaves significant gaps around prerequisites, gas/failure behavior, and result expectations. It is minimally adequate but not complete for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents wallet_id, amount, and chain_id. The description reinforces the amount format with an example and names example wrapped tokens, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema for the other two parameters. Baseline 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 ('unwrap') and resource ('wrapped tokens') with concrete examples (WETH, WAVAX, WBNB) and clarifies the result ('back to native tokens'). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling wrap_eth but never names the sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage is implied by the purpose (convert wrapped tokens to native), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over wrap_eth, transfer, or other transaction tools. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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