ScorpTech x402 API

Evm Address Activity

evm_address_activity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Where is this address used? One call checks an EVM address on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, OP Mainnet, Polygon and BNB Chain: native balance, nonce (transactions sent), contract or EOA, EIP-7702 delegation, code size, and a per-chain active flag plus a summary of chains with activity. Useful before sending funds, for wallet screening and for picking the right chain. Keyless public RPC, read-only. Price: $0.005 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/evm-address-activity

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "evm_address_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chains`	No	Subset of eth, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc (default all six)
`address`	Yes	EVM address (0x, 20 bytes; EIP-55 checked when mixed case)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding cost ($0.005 USDC per successful call via x402), keyless public RPC access, and the HTTPS endpoint. This is real context beyond the annotations, though rate limits or partial-failure behavior across chains are not described.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and the return payload, then pricing/endpoint at the end. Dense but each clause carries meaning; only the repeated 'read-only' is slightly redundant with annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the summary, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Pricing and endpoint details round it out; per-chain failure semantics are the main omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the address format and the chains subset are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific question ('Where is this address used?') and enumerates exactly what one call returns: native balance, nonce, contract/EOA, EIP-7702 delegation, code size, per-chain active flag, and a summary. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like evm_balance or evm_contract_info by being a consolidated multi-chain activity check.

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?

Provides concrete usage contexts ('before sending funds, for wallet screening, and for picking the right chain'), which frames when to reach for it. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it falls below a 5.

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

All ScorpTech x402 API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?