Starknet MCP Server

transfer_starknet_eth

Transfer ETH between Starknet accounts. Provide sender address, recipient address, and amount in human-readable ETH.

Instructions

Transfer ETH from one account to another

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": {
      "privateKey": "<privateKey>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "transfer_starknet_eth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient's Starknet address or Starknet ID
`from`	Yes	Sender's Starknet address
`amount`	Yes	Amount to transfer in ETH (human readable format, not wei)
`maxFee`	No	Maximum fee to pay (optional)
`network`	No	Network name (e.g., 'mainnet', 'sepolia'). Defaults to Mainnet.
`privateKey`	Yes	Private key of the sender account (not stored, only used to sign the transaction)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 19, 2025

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as transaction finality, gas implications, or potential failures. The only behavioral note is about the private key usage, which is already in the 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 with no redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

While the description and schema cover the basic functionality, the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations. Additional context (e.g., network implications, error handling) would improve completeness for an AI 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema, so 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Transfer' and resource 'ETH' with the context 'from one account to another', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'transfer_starknet_strk' and 'transfer_starknet_token'.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool should not be used.

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