Validate and normalize an Ethereum or EVM wallet address, distinguish valid, absent, or invalid ERC-55 checksum casing, and identify the zero address without a network request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Structured EVM address inspection result | |
| meta | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | Unique request identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as distinguishing checksum casing, identifying the zero address, and performing the operation without a network request. No contradictions with annotations.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Validate and normalize') and packs all necessary details (ERC-55 checksum, zero address, no network request) without redundancy. Every phrase adds value; minimal waste.
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 one parameter and an output schema (present), the description covers all essential aspects: input type, the operations performed, special cases (checksum casing, zero address), and a key behavioral constraint (no network request). The return format is presumably handled by the output schema, so the description is complete for selecting and invoking the 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?
The schema has one parameter 'address' with only min/max length and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the address is an Ethereum/EVM wallet address and implying the expected format via checksum validation behavior. It doesn't give explicit format examples (e.g., 0x prefix), but it provides enough semantic context for an agent to understand the parameter purpose.
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's function: validate and normalize an Ethereum/EVM wallet address, distinguish valid/absent/invalid ERC-55 checksum casing, and identify the zero address. It uses specific verbs and resources, making it distinct from sibling tools like base-account-status or base-contract-inspect.
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 phrase 'without a network request' provides clear context for when to use this tool—offline address inspection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the highest bar but still offers useful usage context.
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.
Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (crypto, data, developer, document, research, web) and each tool name describes a specific function; however, a few umbrella tools like web.full-audit and data.contract overlap with their more targeted counterparts, creating minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix, a dot, and a hyphenated lowercase compound name (e.g., crypto.base-block-inspect, web.seo-audit). This makes naming predictable and easy to scan.
At 63 tools, the surface area is very large and exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the tools are organized into six domains, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to select efficiently, and some tools are bundled combinations of others.
Each domain offers a thorough set of operations: crypto covers address, account, block, contract, events, gas, and transaction inspection; data covers cleaning, conversion, schema, and validation; developer covers code review, dependency/license audits, and test generation; research covers SEC, OFAC, GLEIF, and USAspending; web covers extraction, SEO, security, and performance. No obvious dead ends exist for the read-only/inspection purpose.