Blockchain MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between 'abi-decode' and '4byte-decode' (both decode ABI-encoded data) and between 'sig' and 'event-sig' (both get selectors). The descriptions clarify that '4byte-decode' uses an external service while 'abi-decode' is generic, and 'sig' is for functions while 'event-sig' is for events, but an agent might still confuse them initially.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is mixed with kebab-case (e.g., '4byte-decode'), snake_case (e.g., 'keccak256'), and hyphenated phrases (e.g., 'generate-vanity-address'). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern; some tools use verbs like 'get' or 'validate', while others are noun-based like 'sig' or 'event-sig'. However, the names are generally readable and descriptive.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the count is well-scoped for a blockchain utility server covering ABI encoding/decoding, address generation, balance checks, transaction handling, and chain management. Each tool appears to serve a specific function without obvious redundancy, fitting within the typical 3-15 range for such a domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core blockchain operations like ABI handling, address validation, balance queries, transaction sending, and static calls. Minor gaps include lack of tools for transaction signing without sending, or for deploying contracts, but agents can likely work around these with existing tools like 'send-transaction' and 'abi-encode'.
Average 2.9/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers no information about the tool's behavior. It doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., decoded values in a specific format), error conditions, performance characteristics, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to guide an agent effectively.
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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly addressing the tool's function.
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?
Given the complexity of ABI decoding (a technical operation with specific input/output expectations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what decoded results look like, how errors are handled, or provide examples that would help an agent use the tool correctly in context with sibling tools.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('data' as hexadecimal data to decode, 'types' as parameter types array). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema documentation is comprehensive, meeting the baseline for adequate coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'decode abi encoded data' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'abi-decode' with minimal additional information. While it identifies the action (decode) and target (ABI encoded data), it lacks specificity about what ABI decoding entails or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like '4byte-decode' or 'abi-encode'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like '4byte-decode' (which might handle different encoding formats) or 'abi-encode' (the inverse operation), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for ABI decoding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only states the action ('get') without detailing how it works—e.g., whether it computes a keccak256 hash, returns a hex string, handles errors, or has any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language, making it efficient, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like clarity and transparency.
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?
Given the complexity of Ethereum tooling and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a function selector is, how it's used, or what the return value looks like (e.g., a 4-byte hex). For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'functionName' clearly documented in the input schema as a string representing a function signature. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid formats or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'get function selector' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'sig' (which likely means 'signature' or 'selector'). It doesn't specify what a 'function selector' is, what domain it operates in (Ethereum/smart contracts), or what resource it acts upon. While it implies retrieval, the purpose remains vague without context about the function selector's role or format.
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. Given sibling tools like '4byte', 'abi-encode', and 'event-sig' that likely handle related Ethereum/smart contract operations, the description fails to differentiate this tool's specific use case, such as generating selectors for function calls versus events or other encoding tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. The description only states the action ('encode') without detailing any behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or side effects. It lacks information on what the encoding produces (e.g., a hex string) or any constraints, making it insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is very concise with a single phrase, 'encode function call with abi', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified, but it efficiently conveys the core idea without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (encoding with ABI, which can be nuanced), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the output is (e.g., encoded data format), any dependencies, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
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 already documents both parameters ('functionSignature' and 'values') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of usage or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'encode function call with abi' states the general purpose (encoding) but is vague about what specifically is being encoded and how it differs from siblings. It mentions 'function call' and 'abi' but doesn't specify that this tool encodes with a signature, unlike the sibling 'abi-encode' which might encode differently. The description is functional but lacks specificity and 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 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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'abi-encode' or 'abi-decode' for comparison. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise with three words, front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it efficient in structure.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what an event selector is, how it's used, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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%, with the parameter 'eventName' well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'get event selector' states a verb ('get') and resource ('event selector'), but is vague about what an 'event selector' is or its purpose. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'sig' or 'abi-encode-with-signature', leaving ambiguity in scope.
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. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only states the validation action without detailing traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), what validation criteria are used (e.g., checksum, length), error handling, or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.
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 for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what constitutes a valid address, return values (e.g., boolean success/failure, error messages), or integration context. For a validation tool, this leaves the agent unsure of the outcome or how to interpret results, making it inadequate despite the straightforward function.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation specifics. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Validate the validity of an Ethereum address'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('Ethereum address'), but doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'generate-vanity-address' or 'get-balance' beyond the validation focus. The phrasing 'validity of an Ethereum address' is somewhat tautological but still conveys the core function.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for input validation before transactions or checking address formats. With siblings like 'send-transaction' and 'get-balance', there's no indication of when validation is necessary versus other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose potential behaviors like network calls, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with external dependencies.
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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and input, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's external dependency (4byte.directory) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'function signature' entails, the return format, or error scenarios, leaving gaps in understanding for effective agent use.
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%, with the parameter 'selector' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid selectors or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Get function signatures') and the resource ('from 4byte.directory'), with the specific input ('for the given selector'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sig' or 'event-sig' by focusing on function signatures from a specific directory. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from '4byte-decode' or 'abi-decode', which might have overlapping purposes.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sig', '4byte-decode', or 'abi-decode'. It mentions the source ('4byte.directory') but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires network access, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid input. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose and method. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a decoding tool. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., decoded function signature and parameters), potential error conditions, or dependencies on external services like 4byte.directory. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'calldata' parameter clearly documented as 'ABI-encoded calldata (hexadecimal string)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the 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 ('Decode') and target ('ABI-encoded calldata'), and specifies the method ('using 4byte.directory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'abi-decode' by mentioning the specific service used. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'abi-decode' in terms of functionality differences.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'abi-decode' or 'sig'. It mentions 'using 4byte.directory' which hints at the decoding method, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'encode' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only computation, potential errors (e.g., type-value mismatch), output format (likely hex string), or domain-specific constraints (e.g., Ethereum ABI). The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'encode function parameters with abi', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the complexity of ABI encoding (a technical Ethereum concept), no annotations, no output schema, and rich sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what ABI is, the output (e.g., encoded bytes), common use cases, or how it fits with tools like 'send-transaction'. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively without external knowledge.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('types' and 'values'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of full encoding processes or edge cases. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
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 'encode function parameters with abi' clearly states the action (encode) and target (function parameters with ABI), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'abi-decode' or 'abi-encode-with-signature'. However, it doesn't specify what ABI encoding entails (e.g., Ethereum contract interaction) or differentiate from '4byte' or 'sig' tools beyond the basic verb+resource.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like preparing contract calls, comparing to 'abi-encode-with-signature', or avoiding misuse with other encoding/decoding siblings. Without any context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as it doesn't clarify if it's safe, fast, or has any constraints beyond the basic functionality.
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 that front-loads the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with every word contributing to clarity. No unnecessary details or redundancy are present.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. With no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which could be a gap, but the simplicity of the tool makes this adequate for a baseline score.
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 already documents all parameters (address, blockTag, chain) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('balance of an address'), specifying the scope ('on any EVM-compatible chain'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'send-transaction' or 'validate-ethereum-address' by focusing on balance retrieval rather than transaction sending or validation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'static-call' which might also retrieve data, making it a 4 rather than 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an address), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'static-call' for other data retrieval. The context is implied but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. The description only states what the tool does ('calculate keccak256 hash') but provides no information about performance characteristics, error conditions, input validation, or output format. For a cryptographic tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place: 'calculate' specifies the action, 'keccak256' identifies the algorithm, and 'hash' clarifies the operation type. This is a model of efficiency for a simple, single-purpose tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core function but lacks important context about input encoding, output format, and error handling. For a cryptographic hash function, users need to know whether input should be hex-encoded, UTF-8, etc., and what format the hash output will be in.
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%, with the single parameter 'data' clearly documented as 'data to hash'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't specify encoding requirements, size limitations, or formatting expectations. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'calculate keccak256 hash', which is a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('keccak256 hash'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'abi-encode' or 'send-transaction' by focusing specifically on hash calculation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential hash functions that might exist in the ecosystem.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when keccak256 hashing is appropriate versus other hash functions, nor does it reference any of the sibling tools that might serve related purposes. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'concurrent computation' which hints at performance characteristics, but fails to address critical aspects like computational intensity, time expectations, whether this is a read-only operation, or any potential side effects. For a tool that likely involves significant computation, this is inadequate.
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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main functionality, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.
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 computational tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (address format, private key handling), doesn't warn about computational requirements, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of vanity address generation, more completeness 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation. No parameters are explained in the description text itself.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Generate Ethereum addresses') and resource ('matching specified prefix and suffix patterns'), with the additional detail 'with concurrent computation' distinguishing it from basic address generation tools. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being tautological.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like 'validate-ethereum-address' or 'get-balance' exist, there's no mention of when this vanity address generation is appropriate versus other address-related operations, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves - no information about response format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. 'List' implies reading, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.
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 simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally mention what information is returned (chain IDs, names, RPC URLs, etc.) and that this is a read-only operation.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose rather than unnecessary details.
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 verb 'list' and the resource 'all supported EVM-compatible chains and their configurations', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings (like 'get-balance' or 'send-transaction'), but those are fundamentally different operations, so differentiation isn't critical here.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings like 'get-balance' or 'send-transaction' serve different purposes, there's no mention of when this listing operation is appropriate or what context it serves within the broader toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'requires private key' for authentication, but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether the transaction is destructive (likely yes, as it sends), rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and key constraint ('requires private key'). It contains no wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, response format), error scenarios, and does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
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 already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('send a transaction'), target ('smart contract'), and scope ('any EVM-compatible chain'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-balance or static-call. It directly addresses what the tool does without being tautological.
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 description implies usage by mentioning 'requires private key', which suggests authentication needs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like static-call (for read-only calls) or provide context on prerequisites. It offers some guidance but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is 'read-only', which is crucial for safety, and specifies it works on 'any EVM-compatible chain', indicating broad compatibility. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with 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 that front-loads key information: the action ('Make a static call'), target ('smart contract'), scope ('any EVM-compatible chain'), and critical behavior ('read-only'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (interacting with smart contracts on multiple chains) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and safety ('read-only') but omits details on response format, error cases, or chain-specific nuances, which could help an agent use it correctly.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'EVM-compatible chain' (relevant to the 'chain' parameter) and 'read-only' (context for all parameters). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide additional semantic insights.
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 tool's purpose: 'Make a static call to a smart contract on any EVM-compatible chain (read-only)'. It specifies the verb ('Make a static call'), resource ('smart contract'), and scope ('any EVM-compatible chain'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send-transaction' or 'get-balance', which prevents a perfect score.
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 description implies usage context through 'read-only' and 'EVM-compatible chain', suggesting this is for querying contract state without transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send-transaction' (for write operations) or 'get-balance' (for simple balance checks), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![blockchain-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lienhage/blockchain-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lienhage/blockchain-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![blockchain-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lienhage/blockchain-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lienhage/blockchain-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/lienhage/blockchain-mcp'

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