base-intel-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose what is returned (ETH balance, USDC balance, tx count, contract status), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention error handling or rate limits. 'Snapshot' implies no side effects, but this is not made explicit.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists the key outputs. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the return values and purpose. It does not mention the response format or units, but for a snapshot tool this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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% (the parameter is described as '0x address on Base'), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds context that the address is used to fetch a multi-faceted snapshot, but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 ('snapshot') and resource ('Base address') and enumerates the exact data returned (ETH balance, USDC balance, tx count, contract status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gas_now or token_balance, which focus on single metrics.

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 'One-call snapshot' implies a convenience use case for getting multiple pieces of data at once, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list exclusions. There is no comparison to sibling tools, leaving usage context only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states the output unit (gwei and wei) but does not describe the return structure (e.g., object vs. string), nor any potential failure modes or cache behavior. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence that is both concise and informative. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description adequately conveys the network (Base) and output units. However, without an output schema, it could be more explicit about the return data format, but the simple nature of the tool makes this minor gap acceptable.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema correctly reflects that (100% coverage). The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting information. It doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving the current Base network gas price, specifying the units (gwei and wei). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on addresses, tokens, and transactions, but lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Return'.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident given the sibling tools are unrelated to gas prices, implying usage when gas price data is needed. No exclusions are needed.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'formatted + raw' outputs, which is useful, but does not disclose error behavior, decimal handling, or what happens if the address or token is invalid. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output format. Every word earns its place, 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 the low complexity of a balance-checking tool, the description is reasonably complete, but the lack of parameter format details and behavioral caveats makes it only minimally sufficient. The network (Base) is specified, but the agent must guess token parameter conventions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'token' and 'address' as the asset and holder, respectively, but does not specify whether 'token' expects a contract address or symbol, nor the format for 'address'. This leaves meaningful ambiguity for the agent.

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 returns the ERC-20 token balance of a holder on Base, with both formatted and raw values. It uses a specific resource (token balance) and scope (Base network), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_info or tx_status.

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 when wanting an ERC-20 balance for a holder, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention edge cases or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate.

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

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

The description discloses the output scope (metadata fields) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any error conditions, rate limits, or network-specific behaviors beyond 'on Base'. Without annotations, more safety/behavior context would be helpful, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by the word 'metadata'.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information (ERC-20, Base, metadata) and lists the return fields. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

For a simple read-only metadata tool, the description covers the core function and return fields, but it leaves a significant gap in parameter semantics and provides no usage guidance vs alternatives. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by listing the fields, but the ambiguity around the 'token' input prevents a full score.

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 input schema defines a single 'token' string parameter with no description, and the tool description does not clarify whether 'token' refers to an address, symbol, or other identifier. With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics, leaving the agent to guess the expected format.

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 identifies the tool as providing ERC-20 token metadata on Base, listing specific fields (name, symbol, decimals, total supply). Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', the noun phrase 'metadata' effectively implies retrieval, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like token_balance and address_report by focusing on token properties.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description is purely factual about what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer that it's for metadata lookups rather than transactions or balances. The sibling tool names provide subtle context, but the description itself does not state usage boundaries.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Look up' indicates a read-only operation, and listing the specific fields returned (status, from, to, value, block, gas used) provides transparent information about the tool's behavior. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a simple lookup, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose and return fields. Every word contributes, with no repetition of schema details. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately lists the return values. It does not mention potential error conditions or network requirements, but for a simple transaction lookup, the provided information is largely complete. The lack of annotations is compensated by the explicit 'look up' and return field list.

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 input schema only specifies 'hash' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that the hash is a 'Base transaction hash', adding meaning to the parameter. It does not disclose format constraints (e.g., 0x prefix) but provides enough context for an agent to understand the parameter's role.

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: 'Look up a Base transaction by hash' and lists the returned fields (status, from, to, value, block, gas used). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like address_report, gas_now, token_balance, and token_info, which handle different types of queries.

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: it is for looking up a transaction by hash. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context from sibling tools suggests differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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