Skip to main content
Glama

resolve_token

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolves a token symbol to its canonical contract address and decimals from a curated registry, surfacing native vs bridged warnings to prevent silent token substitution.

Instructions

Resolve a (chain, symbol) pair to its canonical contract address + decimals from the curated registry. Supports EVM chains (ethereum, arbitrum, polygon, base, optimism), Solana, and TRON. Surfaces native-vs-bridged ambiguity verbatim — e.g. asking for USDC on Arbitrum returns the native Circle USDC contract AND a hasBridgedVariant warning with the USDC.e legacy-bridged contract in alternatives[], so the agent can offer the user the actual choice instead of silently picking one. Asking for USDC.e directly returns the bridged contract with an isBridgedVariant warning + the native USDC alternative. Same shape on Polygon/Optimism (USDC.e) and Base (USDbC is the bridged form there). By design, this tool is canonical-registry-only — it does NOT probe on-chain to resolve unknown symbols, since an attacker can deploy a contract that returns "USDC" from symbol() and is wholly unrelated to the real Circle stablecoin. Unknown symbols throw with a list of registry hits on that chain so the agent can suggest the right one. USE THIS BEFORE prepare_token_send when the user names a token by symbol — surface any warnings to the user before passing the resolved contract through to prepare_token_send. If the desired token isn't in the registry, look up the contract on a block explorer and call prepare_token_send directly with the explicit address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesChain the symbol is on. Restricted to the chains with curated token tables. BTC + LTC have no token concept and aren't accepted.
symbolYesToken symbol to resolve (case-insensitive, but the canonical-registry key casing wins on output). Examples: "USDC", "USDC.e", "USDbC", "WETH", "BONK". The resolver does NOT probe on-chain — only canonical-registry hits succeed, by design (stops phishing-token symbol collisions from being resolved silently).
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds significant context: native-vs-bridged ambiguity handling with warnings and alternatives, unknown symbols throw with registry hits list, security rationale for not probing on-chain. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is thorough and well-structured, front-loading purpose and then detailing behavior. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise. Still, it earns a high score.

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?

No output schema, but description explains the output shape: contract address, decimals, warnings, alternatives array. Also covers error handling and actionable guidance for the agent. Complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% but description adds crucial details: chain description excludes BTC/LTC, symbol examples include case-insensitivity and registry key casing, and reiterates the on-chain probing limitation. Adds meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool resolves a chain+symbol pair to canonical contract address and decimals. It distinguishes from on-chain probing and from sibling tools like resolve_ens_name by specifying it works only with curated registry.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool before `prepare_token_send` when token is given by symbol, and to surface warnings. Also states when not to use (unknown symbols) and alternative action (look up on explorer and use `prepare_token_send` directly).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/szhygulin/vaultpilot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server