base_token_info
ERC-20 name, symbol, decimals, total supply for a token on Base. Costs $0.001.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
ERC-20 name, symbol, decimals, total supply for a token on Base. Costs $0.001.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description transparently states it costs $0.001. It does not mention read-only nature, but this is implied by the info retrieval purpose.
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?
Extremely concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and cost. No wasted words.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. Could mention return type briefly.
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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 'address' parameter; with 0% schema coverage, it should clarify expected format or examples.
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 specifies the tool retrieves ERC-20 name, symbol, decimals, and total supply on Base, distinguishing it from siblings like token_price or base_allowance.
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 use when basic ERC-20 metadata is needed on Base but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.