Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CoW Protocol MCP Server

CoW Protocol MCP Server

by saturn-dbeal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Resolve Token Symbol to Address

cow_resolve_token
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a token's contract address using its symbol on a given blockchain network. Returns address, symbol, name, decimals, and chain ID.

Instructions

Look up a token's contract address by its symbol on a specific network.

This is useful when you know the token symbol but not the address.

Args:

  • symbolOrAddress: Token symbol (e.g., 'USDC', 'WETH', 'COW') or an address (returns info if found)

  • network: The blockchain network

Returns:

  • Token address

  • Symbol and name

  • Decimals

  • Chain ID

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": {
      "symbolOrAddress": "<symbolOrAddress>"
    },
    "name": "cow_resolve_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNoThe network to search onmainnet
symbolOrAddressYesToken symbol (e.g., 'USDC', 'COW', 'WETH') or contract address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return fields and noting that passing an address also returns info. No contradictions.

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 concise with a clear first sentence, a useful note, and well-structured bullet points for arguments and returns. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description is complete. It explains purpose, parameters, and return values adequately.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully. The tool description adds examples and clarifies that symbolOrAddress can be a symbol or address, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 it resolves a token symbol to its contract address on a specific network, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cow_search_tokens by focusing on direct symbol-to-address lookup.

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 explicitly says 'Useful when you know the token symbol but not the address,' providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it but the context implies it's for known tokens.

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