Skip to main content
Glama
nexus-xyz

nexus-exchange-mcp

Official
by nexus-xyz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

register_bridge_wallet

Submit the challenge message, EVM address, and EIP-191 signature to register the account's one withdrawal wallet; confirm this permanent choice.

Instructions

Step 2 of registering a withdrawal wallet: submit the address, the message returned by create_bridge_wallet_challenge echoed back VERBATIM, and the EIP-191 signature over it. Omit signature to have the stdio server sign with its own wallet (see create_wallet; play-funds targets only, and address must be that wallet). The address recovered from the signature must equal address, and the challenge must name the authenticated account. The registered wallet is where withdrawals are paid, so getting it wrong matters: an account holds ONE wallet in this cut and replacement is not supported — registering a different address afterwards is refused with 409 wallet_already_registered rather than updating the record. Because of that you must pass confirm: true. Re-registering the SAME address is idempotent and returns the existing record. Errors: invalid_address, invalid_challenge, challenge_expired, signature_mismatch, account_mismatch on 400; wallet_registration_unavailable on 503 when the deployment has no challenge key (not transient — do not retry). Requires API credentials.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesEVM address being registered (0x-prefixed, 20 bytes). Must match the address recovered from `signature`.
confirmNoMust be true to actually register. Guards a permanent choice: the account gets one withdrawal wallet and cannot swap it later.
messageYesThe `message` from `create_bridge_wallet_challenge`, echoed back byte-for-byte. Do not reformat, re-encode or trim it — the server re-derives the signed bytes and the integrity tag from this exact string.
signatureNo0x-prefixed 65-byte EIP-191 `personal_sign` signature over `message`, produced by the key for `address`. Optional when this server holds the wallet for `address`: it signs instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / signature / description
      Previous value: -"0x-prefixed 65-byte EIP-191 `personal_sign` signature over `message`, produced by the key for `address`."New value: +"0x-prefixed 65-byte EIP-191 `personal_sign` signature over `message`, produced by the key for `address`. Optional when this server holds the wallet for `address`: it signs instead."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "address",
-  "message",
-  "signature"
-]New value: +[
+  "address",
+  "message"
+]
  2. Addedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: idempotency on same-address re-registration, 409 `wallet_already_registered` on replacement refusal, the exact error codes with HTTP statuses, and the non-transient 503 `wallet_registration_unavailable` with an explicit do-not-retry instruction. It also states the auth requirement ('Requires API credentials') and the address-recovery invariant.

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?

Long but front-loaded with the operation's identity and its step in the flow, and each sentence adds a distinct constraint (verbatim echo, signing fallback, one-wallet rule, confirm guard, error taxonomy). It is dense rather than padded, though the length is near the upper bound for comfortable scanning.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains what a successful call returns (the existing record on idempotent re-registration) and enumerates failure modes with status codes. For a consequential one-shot mutation with four params, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics: `message` must be echoed VERBATIM or the integrity tag fails, `signature` is optional only when the server holds the wallet for `address`, and `confirm` guards a permanent choice. These relationships go beyond the per-field schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Step 2 of registering a withdrawal wallet') and names exactly what is submitted (address, message, signature). It clearly positions itself relative to the sibling `create_bridge_wallet_challenge`, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives the prerequisite (the message from `create_bridge_wallet_challenge`), the conditional path (omit `signature` to have the stdio server sign, play-funds targets only), and the required `confirm: true`. It also tells the agent when registration is refused, which is strong when/when-not guidance.

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