Ethereum address activity: ETH balance plus recent large transfers in and out. Call when a specific wallet or exchange address is named and needs to be tracked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Ethereum address (0x...) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| balanceEth | Yes | ||
| recentLargeTransfers | Yes | Transfers above 1 ETH, newest first. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "address": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "balanceEth": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "recentLargeTransfers": {
+ "description": "Transfers above 1 ETH, newest first.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "direction": {
+ "enum": [
+ "in",
+ "out"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "from": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "hash": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "timestamp": {
+ "description": "Unix seconds.",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "to": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "valueEth": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "hash",
+ "from",
+ "to",
+ "valueEth",
+ "timestamp",
+ "direction"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "address",
+ "balanceEth",
+ "recentLargeTransfers"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the output includes balance and large transfers, which is beyond what annotations convey.
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 sentences: one clearly defines the tool's output, the other gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the purpose.
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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and key output fields. Minor gap: no mention of any limitations, but adequate for a simple tool.
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 parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('Ethereum address (0x...)'), so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it retrieves Ethereum address activity with ETH balance and recent large transfers. It distinguishes from siblings like get_eth_whale_flows by specifying a single wallet or exchange address, and the usage guidance reinforces this.
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 explicitly says 'Call when a specific wallet or exchange address is named and needs to be tracked,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the specificity is sufficient for a simple tool.
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.