Underground Cultural District MCP Server

validate-wallet

Check if an Ethereum, Bitcoin, or Solana wallet address is valid by verifying its format. No blockchain connection required.

Instructions

Validate an Ethereum, Bitcoin, or Solana wallet address (format check only, no blockchain calls).

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "chain": "<chain>"
    },
    "name": "validate-wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Wallet address
`chain`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv4.3.1May 4, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / chain / enum
```
Previous value: -[
-  "eth",
-  "btc"
-]New value: +[
+  "eth",
+  "btc",
+  "sol"
+]
```
First observedv4.1.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description fully conveys the behavior: a format validation without blockchain calls. Transparent about limitations, though could mention return value format.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and scope. Perfectly concise.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple validation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does and its limitations. Complete and sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%, but description adds value by listing the three supported chains (eth, btc, sol), which maps directly to the enum parameter. Also clarifies the 'address' parameter is for wallet addresses.

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?

Clearly states the action (validate), resource (wallet address), and supported chains (Ethereum, Bitcoin, Solana). Also specifies it's a format check only, distinguishing from blockchain interactions.

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?

Describes the scope as 'format check only, no blockchain calls', making it clear when to use this tool and when not to. No explicit sibling comparison, but context is sufficient given unrelated siblings.

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