Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
x402-wallet-mcp

x402-wallet-mcp

by kato9292929
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get wallet address

get_wallet_address
Read-only

Retrieves the configured wallet's address for a specified CAIP-2 chain, or lists addresses across all supported chains when no chain is provided.

Instructions

Returns the wallet address for each chain the configured wallet provider supports.

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_wallet_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoCAIP-2 chain id, e.g. "eip155:84532" (Base Sepolia) or "eip155:8453" (Base). Omit for all chains.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the configured provider's supported chains, which is useful context, but says nothing about failure behavior when no provider is configured or wallet is unlocked.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. Nothing redundant, though it is so short that it leaves gaps rather than being padded.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return shape only implicitly (address per supported chain) and never describes the provider-configuration precondition. Adequate but missing the operational preconditions an agent would need.

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% and the chain parameter already documents the CAIP-2 format and the "omit for all chains" default. The description's phrase "for each chain the configured wallet provider supports" only loosely reinforces that default, adding little beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Returns the wallet address") and scopes it to chains supported by the configured wallet provider. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_wallet_balance or get_resource_details, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this versus get_wallet_balance or other wallet-related siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word "address".

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools