Check a Base wallet's ERC-20 approvals: allowances for 8 major tokens (USDC, WETH, USDbC, DAI...) to common spenders (Permit2, Uniswap Universal Router, Uniswap SwapRouter02, Aerodrome Router...); flags unlimited approvals. Costs $0.005.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check' strongly implies a read-only operation and it usefully discloses the $0.005 cost and that unlimited approvals are flagged, but it does not state whether results are cached/live, rate limits, or failure modes for unapproved or non-wallet addresses.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the token/spender lists and cost as useful supporting detail. Slightly packed with parenthetical enumerations, but nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description summarizes what is returned (allowances for covered tokens/spenders, unlimited-approval flags), and there is only one simple required parameter. It is close to complete for this tool's low complexity, though the exact response shape remains unstated.
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?
One parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the only structural hint is the 0x-prefixed 40-hex pattern. The description supplies context that the address is a Base wallet (implying a user wallet, not a contract), but does not explain format, chain, or validation beyond that.
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 (Check) and resource (ERC-20 approvals for a Base wallet), enumerating the token and spender coverage and the unlimited-approval flagging behavior. It is immediately distinguishable from the ethereum_ and bsc_ token_approvals siblings by chaining scope.
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 chain-specific name and description make the usage context clear (auditing a Base wallet's approval exposure), and naming the covered tokens/spenders bounds expectations. However, it never states when to prefer or avoid it relative to siblings, nor any prerequisites such as wallet-vs-contract input.
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.