Determine whether a Base address is a contract or an EOA. Costs $0.001.
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": {
"address": "<address>"
},
"name": "base_contract"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the cost ($0.001) which is a behavioral trait. However, it lacks details about potential errors, network calls, or output behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.
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?
The description is a single sentence front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the cost. Every word earns its place; no extraneous content.
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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and cost but omits expected output format (e.g., returns 'contract' or 'eoa'). The absence of output schema makes this gap notable.
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%, so the description must add parameter context. It does not specify the address format, example, or constraints beyond the schema's type. The description adds no value to the parameter meaning.
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 clearly states the tool determines whether a Base address is a contract or EOA, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like base_allowance or base_token_info which handle different aspects of Base addresses.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The cost mention ($0.001) is a constraint but not a usage guideline. No when-not or tool comparison is included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.