Call a view/pure function to resolve an exact fact on any supported EVM chain. Give the signature and output type(s). e.g. minter() -> ["address"]; totalSupply() -> ["uint256"]. Pass chain if not ethereum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | ||
| chain | No | EVM chain: ethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, or bsc (default ethereum) | |
| address | Yes | ||
| output_types | Yes | ||
| function_signature | Yes | e.g. "minter()" or "balanceOf(address)" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is for view/pure functions (read-only) and gives examples, but does not describe error behavior, return format, or limitations (e.g., reverts, unsupported functions). Some transparency is present via 'view/pure' but more depth is expected.
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 plus concise examples, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks details on how to pass arguments, what the return value looks like (even though output types are given, the structure of returned data is not specified), and error handling. Significant gaps remain for correct invocation.
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 coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies function_signature and output_types via examples and notes the chain default, but does not explain the 'args' parameter, which is essential for functions with inputs. This partial compensation earns a mid score.
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 calls a view/pure function on any supported EVM chain, with specific examples (minter() -> address, totalSupply() -> uint256). This verb+resource+scope is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools focused on security, tokens, or NFTs.
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 usage for reading contract state and provides the chain default ('Pass `chain` if not ethereum'), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or include exclusions. Usage context is present but not fully developed.
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.
