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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'price 0.0 (free)', and mentions it uses 'Public EVM JSON-RPC'. This sufficiently discloses the read-only, cost-free nature and underlying mechanism. It does not contradict any annotations (none present). Minor improvements could include noting rate limits or error handling.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and capabilities. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the tool, second sentence notes it is public, read-only, and free. No extraneous information.
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 lists the fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, totalSupply, owner, ownership-renounced signal), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. It doesn't specify the exact output format or representation of the ownership-renounced signal, but overall it is complete enough for a tool with two parameters and a clear purpose.
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% with descriptions for both parameters ('EVM chain (default: ethereum).' and 'EVM address (0x-hex)'). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 provides an ERC-20 token safety summary using on-chain eth_call reads, listing specific fields (name, symbol, decimals, totalSupply, owner, ownership-renounced signal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like onchain_risk_address_risk (broader address risk), onchain_risk_approval_risk (approvals), onchain_risk_contract_verify (source verification), and onchain_risk_sanctions_screen (sanctions). The verb 'safety summary' plus resource 'token' is specific.
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 when to use it (when needing ERC-20 token metadata and ownership renounced status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the context is clear given the sibling tool names, and the description highlights it is for token safety specifically.
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.