AgentWallet MCP Server

wrap_eth

Wrap native tokens like ETH or AVAX into their ERC-20 versions for DeFi protocols that require wrapped tokens, with amounts given in human-readable format.

Instructions

Wrap native tokens (ETH, AVAX, BNB, POL, PLS) into their wrapped ERC-20 version (WETH, WAVAX, etc.). Required for most DeFi protocols that use ERC-20 tokens instead of raw native tokens. Specify amount in human-readable format (e.g. "0.5" for 0.5 ETH).

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": "wrap_eth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount to wrap 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

A3.5/5.0

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, and it omits key traits of a fund-moving mutation: whether it submits an on-chain transaction, gas requirements, whether the amount must leave headroom for fees, irreversibility, and failure behavior. It does disclose the core effect (native -> ERC-20 conversion) and the 1:1 wrapper relationship, but that is the minimum.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by rationale and formatting guidance; nothing is padded. The amount-format sentence is slightly redundant with the schema but is defensible as a call-site reminder.

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 transaction-submitting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose what the call returns (transaction hash? receipt?) and any preconditions such as sufficient native balance for gas. Neither is covered, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking a value-moving operation.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description's note on human-readable amount format largely restates the schema's own example ('0.5') and adds no new semantics for wallet_id or chain_id.

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?

States a specific verb (wrap) and resource (native tokens) and names the exact output artifact (wrapped ERC-20, e.g. WETH/WAVAX), with concrete chain examples. An agent can immediately distinguish it from unwrap_eth by the direction of conversion.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a real usage rationale: 'Required for most DeFi protocols that use ERC-20 tokens instead of raw native tokens', which tells the agent when this call is needed. It stops short of explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to use unwrap_eth instead), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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