Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.blockscout

Get Address Information

get_address_info
Read-only
Get comprehensive information about an address, including:
- Address existence check
- Native token (ETH) balance (provided as is, without adjusting by decimals)
- First transaction details (block number and timestamp) for age calculation
- ENS name association (if any)
- Contract status (whether the address is a contract, whether it is verified)
- Proxy contract information (if applicable): determines if a smart contract is a proxy contract (which forwards calls to implementation contracts), including proxy type and implementation addresses
- Token details (if the contract is a token): name, symbol, decimals, total supply, etc.
Essential for address analysis, contract investigation, token research, and DeFi protocol analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesAddress to get information about
chain_idYesThe ID of the blockchain
session_idNoOpaque session identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe main data payload of the tool's response.
notesNoA list of important contextual notes, such as warnings about data truncation or data quality issues.
paginationNoPagination information, present only if the 'data' is a single page of a larger result set.
content_textNoOptional human-readable summary used for MCP content responses.
instructionsNoA list of suggested follow-up actions or instructions for the LLM to plan its next steps.
data_descriptionNoA list of notes explaining the structure, fields, or conventions of the 'data' payload.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those annotations: it states ETH balance is 'provided as is, without adjusting by decimals,' explains that first transaction details are used for age calculation, and details how proxy contract detection works. This gives the agent insight into the tool's behavior and output semantics beyond the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening line followed by bullet points, making it easy to scan. Each bullet adds a specific capability detail. The final sentence about use cases is slightly promotional but still provides useful context. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this many features, though it could be trimmed without losing value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all major facets of the tool: existence, balances, transactions, ENS, contract/proxy status, and token details. It doesn't explain error handling or edge cases, but the output schema and annotations (openWorldHint) fill some gaps. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — all three parameters (address, chain_id, session_id) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format examples, no explanation of chain_id values). Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get comprehensive information about an address') and enumerates the exact data points returned (existence, ETH balance, first transaction, ENS, contract status, proxy info, token details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_address_by_ens_name (which resolves ENS to address) and get_tokens_by_address (which lists tokens held by an address).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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: 'Essential for address analysis, contract investigation, token research, and DeFi protocol analysis.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the use cases imply when this comprehensive tool is appropriate vs. more specialized sibling tools. No misleading guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct blockchain resource or action (address, block, transaction, token, NFT, contract, chain, raw API, session init). Even though direct_api_call is a generic fallback, the specialized tools have clear, non-overlapping purposes, and the complementary nature of tools like get_token_transfers_by_address and get_transactions_by_address is explicitly documented.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern (e.g., get_block_info, get_tokens_by_address), but there are notable deviations: direct_api_call, lookup_token_by_symbol, inspect_contract_code, read_contract, and __unlock_blockchain_analysis__. These verbs are still descriptive and readable, but the mix of 'get' with other verbs prevents a perfect 5.

Tool Count4/5

With 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but not excessive. Each tool maps to a significant Blockscout API capability, and the count feels proportional to the breadth of blockchain data covered. It is heavier than a minimal toolkit but not bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core exploration workflows: address info, block lookup, transaction details, token/NFT holdings, contract ABI/source inspection, and read-only contract calls. Minor gaps like a dedicated token-info-by-contract-address tool exist, but the direct_api_call fallback and get_address_info's token details mitigate these. The surface is comprehensive for a read-only blockchain explorer.

Resources