Basic onchain picture of an address on any supported EVM chain: contract or not, code size, native balance, and whether it's an EIP-1967 upgradeable proxy (and its implementation). Pass chain (ethereum/base/arbitrum/optimism/polygon/bsc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | EVM chain: ethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, or bsc (default ethereum) | |
| address | Yes | the 0x address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key outputs (contract status, code size, balance, proxy info) and supported chains. However, it does not mention potential errors, response format, or any side effects (though none are expected for a read-only lookup). The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context beyond the basic output list.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose ('Basic onchain picture'), and every clause adds value. It lists the specific data points and supported chains without unnecessary fluff or repetition.
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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and expected output fields. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the listed data points are sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior for invalid addresses or unsupported chains, but this is a low-complexity 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%, and the schema already documents both parameters (address and chain with enum-like list). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating 'Pass chain' and the chain list, with no new syntax, default, or constraint details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('lookup' implied by 'onchain picture') and clearly states the resource (address on EVM chains) and the exact data points returned (contract status, code size, native balance, EIP-1967 proxy). It distinguishes itself from siblings like address_security or etherscan_lookup by focusing on basic onchain attributes rather than security analysis or general explorer info.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (basic onchain picture) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. There is no exclusion criteria or comparison to siblings, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicitly stated.
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.
Many tools share the same core purpose (safety checks) differentiated mainly by chain or asset type, and descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish them most of the time. However, pairs like rug_check/rugcheck and deployer_check/deployer_reputation have overlapping purposes that could lead to misselection.
Most tool names follow a lowercase snake_case pattern with clear descriptors, but there are notable exceptions like 'rugcheck', 'defillama', and 'verify'. Additionally, the 'rug_check' vs 'rugcheck' pair is an obvious naming inconsistency.
44 tools is excessive for any server. Even for a broad security/due-diligence purpose, many tools (especially the robinhood_* series) are highly specialized and could be consolidated into fewer actions.
The tool surface is impressively comprehensive, covering token/NFT safety, transaction simulation, whale/address tracking, stock analysis, prediction markets, and project validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no ENS resolution or stock price history), but they are not critical for the server's core purpose.
