Starknet MCP Server

get_starknet_token_info

Retrieve details about a Starknet token by providing its contract address, with optional network selection.

Instructions

Get information about a token

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": {
      "tokenAddress": "<tokenAddress>"
    },
    "name": "get_starknet_token_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`network`	No	Network name (e.g., 'mainnet', 'sepolia'). Defaults to Mainnet.
`tokenAddress`	Yes	Token contract address or Starknet ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 19, 2025

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool makes external network calls, any rate limits, or the nature of the request (e.g., read-only vs. state-changing). The description carries the full burden but fails to provide transparency.

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 a single sentence with no waste. However, it is somewhat under-specified, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Front-loading is acceptable but more detail could be added without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and the complexity of a token info lookup, the description does not explain what information is returned (e.g., token name, symbol, decimals) or any edge cases. It is minimally complete but lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 adequately documents both parameters. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, hence baseline score of 3.

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 information about a token' is clear but vague. It does not specify what kind of information (e.g., name, symbol, decimals, total supply) is returned, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_starknet_token_balance which also deal with tokens.

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 such as get_starknet_token_balance or get_starknet_nft_balance. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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