Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SSIG MCP

SSIG MCP

by mrq1911
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Request EVM transaction approval

request_evm_transaction

Simulate and queue EVM transactions for explicit browser-wallet approval, with mandatory ASCII explanation of amounts, destination, outcome, and risk.

Instructions

Simulate and queue an EVM transaction for explicit browser-wallet approval. Never claims that a transaction is signed before the user approves it. asciiExplanation is mandatory, ASCII-only, and must explain amounts, destination, outcome, and risk.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "asciiExplanation": "<asciiExplanation>",
      "mode": "<mode>",
      "chainId": "<chainId>",
      "transaction": "<transaction>"
    },
    "name": "request_evm_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
titleYes
chainIdYes
networkNameNo
transactionYes
expectedSignerNo
asciiExplanationYesRequired plain-ASCII explanation of what the transaction does. Use a small ASCII diagram or table, name assets/amounts/recipients, and state the expected outcome and main risk.
expiresInMinutesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool simulates before queueing, never claims signature before approval, and enforces asciiExplanation constraints. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) without contradicting them.

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 compact at two sentences, front-loads the core function, and adds a critical safety caveat and a mandatory parameter rule without wasted words.

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?

The description covers the primary action and key safety detail, but doesn't explain the sign vs sign-and-submit modes, return values, or lifecycle of the queued request. Given the absence of an output schema and presence of a nested transaction object, additional context would help the agent use the tool 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?

Only asciiExplanation receives enhanced semantic guidance in the description, restating and expanding on the schema's requirement. The many other parameters (mode, chainId, transaction fields) are left to the schema, which is sparse given only 13% schema description coverage; the description could have compensated more.

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 opens with 'Simulate and queue an EVM transaction for explicit browser-wallet approval,' which clearly identifies the action (simulate/queue) and resource (EVM transaction) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_solana_transaction or list_transaction_requests. The additional caveat about not claiming signature reinforces the tool's role.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when an EVM transaction needs user approval, and the name/description differentiate it from Solana/Sui variants. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over the get/list/cancel transaction request tools, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions.

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