ERC-20 token safety summary via on-chain eth_call reads: name / symbol / decimals / totalSupply, owner and ownership-renounced signal. Public EVM JSON-RPC. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | EVM chain (default: ethereum). | |
| address | Yes | EVM address (0x-hex) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description declares the tool as 'Read-only' and 'price 0.0 (free)', but without annotations, it carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens if the address is not an ERC-20 token.
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 concise: three sentences front-loaded with the tool's purpose, using specific verbs and resource references. No unnecessary words.
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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, totalSupply, owner, ownership-renounced signal). It also notes it's read-only and free. Missing error handling or environmental context, but reasonably complete for a simple 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the data returned (name, symbol, etc.) but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for chain and address.
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 it provides an ERC-20 token safety summary via on-chain eth_call reads, listing specific fields (name, symbol, decimals, totalSupply, owner, ownership-renounced signal). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like onchain_risk_address_risk and onchain_risk_contract_verify by focusing specifically on token safety 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 description implies usage for checking token safety but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., onchain_risk_contract_verify for contract code verification). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.