ERC-20 approval exposure: scans Approval logs granted by the address and flags unlimited / active allowances, via eth_getLogs over 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) | |
| fromBlock | No | Optional start block for the log scan (default: a recent window). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses read-only nature, zero cost, and underlying mechanism (eth_getLogs over public EVM JSON-RPC). However, it omits details like rate limits, block range limitations, or whether the scan is real-time or historical.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the key purpose ('ERC-20 approval exposure'). Every sentence provides value.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return format or examples. It says 'flags unlimited/active allowances' but does not specify whether it returns a list, boolean, or summary. This leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond implying the 'address' is the target. No additional explanation of the enum or optional fromBlock is given 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 clearly states the tool scans ERC-20 Approval logs for unlimited/active allowances, using a specific verb ('scans', 'flags') and resource ('Approval logs'). It is distinct from siblings like address risk, contract verify, sanctions, and token safety.
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 mentions read-only and free, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., onchain_risk_address_risk) or state any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.
The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.
With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.
For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.