Paid Base Token Tools

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

Adds substantial value beyond the annotations: it discloses return contents (exact units, decimals, provenance), negative space ('Does not approve or transfer tokens'), a per-call cost ('0.01 native USDC'), shared pilot limits, and a pinned version. The readOnlyHint=false is reconciled by the paid-call side effect the description itself discloses, so the agent is not misled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core operation, then the return contract, then the negative guarantee, then cost/limits. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the raw version hash ('253064e6ce6110d8') is provenance noise that adds little for tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies what is returned (units, decimals, provenance), and it covers safety and cost. The gaps are the undocumented parameters and the fact that 'pinned block' is never defined or made selectable, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three required parameters (tokenAddress, ownerAddress, spenderAddress). The description does not explain any of them, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; the only available semantics are the self-explanatory property names and the shared address pattern.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an ERC-20 allowance on Base') plus a scope qualifier ('at a pinned block'). This is readily distinguishable from siblings like base_token_facts (metadata) or base_uniswap_v3_lp_accounting_audit (LP accounting), which involve different resources and verbs.

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

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

Gives clear context for invocation ('before an AI proposes spending'), telling the agent when this read is warranted. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, so it falls short of the 5 tier, but the trigger condition is explicit.

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

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: a hard cost of 0.01 native USDC on Base and that the read is pinned to one block (deterministic snapshot). Annotations cover openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and the payment requirement explains why readOnlyHint is false. It stops short of describing rate limits, failure/refund behavior, or output format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the cost/disclaimer trailing. Every clause carries information; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the four payload fields, plus discloses cost and a determinism guarantee (pinned block). It omits return shape/format and error conditions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single tokenAddress parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics (Base mainnet ERC-20 contract address, 0x + 40 hex pattern). The description only implicitly scopes the input to Base ERC-20 tokens, which is a marginal addition. Baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a Base ERC-20 fact packet') and enumerates exactly what the packet contains (metadata, supply, bytecode hash, EIP-1967 slot), which implicitly separates it from siblings like base_token_allowance and the LP accounting audit. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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

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

Usage is only implied by the resource description; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to sibling tools such as base_token_allowance. The stated 0.01 USDC prerequisite is a useful precondition but is not guidance on selecting this tool.

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

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

The description asserts 'Read-only', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, a direct conflict that an agent will read as possible state mutation. Although the text does disclose the paid side effect (0.01 native USDC per call on Base) and pilot limits, which plausibly explains the false readOnly hint, the two signals contradict each other instead of being reconciled. Flagged as an annotation contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and chain/protocol, followed by semantics, caveats, safety/pricing, and version pin. Every sentence carries information an agent needs (paid call, no USD/profitability claim, tokensOwed caveat). The version string is the only near-optional element, so it falls slightly short of maximally economical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paid, schema-nested read tool with an output schema, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the cost and pilot limits, the accounting semantics and signed-discrepancy intent, the tokensOwed interpretation caveat, and the explicit absence of valuation/trading/custody claims. Return format need not be explained because an output schema exists.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by framing the 'reported' object as optional checkpoints for reconciliation and by noting uint128 accounting semantics for the raw amounts, plus the caveat that recorded tokensOwed may include withdrawn principal. However, it says 'one canonical block hash' while the schema parameter is blockNumber (a number whose omission falls back to the provider's safe block), leaving a terminology mismatch rather than clarifying the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description names a specific verb and resource (read Base Uniswap V3 NFT and pool state) and scopes it precisely to one canonical block hash, then states the reconciliation job against optional reported raw amounts. It also disambiguates the resource ('not an Aerodrome or V4 position' appears in the schema, and the description pins protocol/chain), so an agent can distinguish it from the unrelated siblings (base_token_allowance, base_token_facts, preview_base_usdc) at a glance.

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

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

Usage context is implied rather than stated: supplying the optional 'reported' amounts triggers reconciliation, and the block-number parameter is described as a historical pin. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no guidance on choosing a block number versus the provider's safe block, and no pointed alternative tool to prefer in other cases. Adjacent siblings are unrelated, so the absence of routing guidance is a modest but real gap.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context (zero monetary cost; pricing scoped to the receiving wallet and pilot limits rather than a universal rate), but the final sentence is grammatically opaque and its practical meaning is hard to extract.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return contents before the pricing caveat. The last sentence is ambiguous enough that a reader must re-read it, costing some clarity relative to its brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate the three returned data categories (versions, per-call USDC prices, input schemas). It omits any note on result format, ordering, or pagination, which leaves a minor gap for a catalogue-style read.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters (empty object schema, 100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

States a specific verb ('List') and three concrete resources (mounted tool versions, per-call USDC prices, input schemas), which is far more informative than a tautology. It does not name or contrast any sibling (get_tool_status, base_token_facts, preview_base_usdc), so differentiation is left to inference.

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

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

The only usable guidance is the single word 'Free', which hints at cost but never states when this tool should be chosen over siblings such as get_tool_status or preview_base_usdc. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, no alternatives are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the operation is "Free" and the caveat that configuration state "does not prove settlement" warns the agent not to over-interpret the result. This is real added value, though it stops short of describing the response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary read description is front-loaded before the caveat. It is efficiently sized, though the first sentence's phrasing is slightly tangled.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does list the values (price, receiver, setup status). However, it is ambiguous about what "setup status" means and gives no format or example, leaving the agent under-informed about what it will actually receive.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline rule, a parameterless tool scores 4; the description correctly does not fabricate parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description names a specific verb ("Read") and a resource set ("Base USDC price, receiver and setup status"), which is informative. However, the phrasing "the available tool's" is ambiguous and the enumeration of three disparate values reads as vague scope rather than a crisp definition. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like preview_base_usdc or get_runtime_tools.

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

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

The only guidance is the caveat "configuration does not prove settlement," which is a semantic warning, not a when-to-use directive. There is no indication of when this should be called versus preview_base_usdc or get_runtime_tools, and no prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is free, it is a fixed sample, no other token input is accepted, and it does not make a payment — all useful for an agent deciding whether invoking it has any cost or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no wasted words, with the core identity (free fixed USDC sample) front-loaded. The qualifiers that follow both do real work.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and its constraints adequately. The only gap is that it does not hint at what 'on-chain facts' are returned, which matters slightly more when no output schema exists.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The 'No other token input accepted' clause usefully explains why the schema is empty and preempts an agent from trying to pass a token address.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

Names a specific resource (native USDC on-chain facts on Base) and a specific mode (free fixed sample/preview), which is more precise than a generic 'get facts'. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling base_token_facts by stating only USDC is accepted, though it never names that sibling.

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

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

The description implies usage (a free, fixed preview rather than a parameterized query) and rules out payment, but never states explicitly when to choose this over base_token_facts or base_token_allowance. The routing guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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