Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

EVM Wallet Balances

evm_wallet_balance

Balances of a wallet address or ENS name on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism and Polygon in one call: native ETH/POL, USDC, USDT, DAI and any ERC-20 contracts you add, each with USD value and a total. Use to check whether a wallet is funded, value a portfolio or confirm a payment arrived.

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_wallet_balance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chains`	No
`tokens`	No
`address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It does disclose key behavior: aggregation across chains 'in one call', inclusion of USD values and a total, and that chains/tokens are optional filters. It doesn't mention whether all five chains are queried by default, whether results can fail partially, or any rate/quota limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two front-loaded sentences: the capability and its scope first, then the use cases. Every clause adds information (chains, token types, USD valuation, total) with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description still usefully previews them. The main residual gap is the string format and semantics of the optional chains/tokens parameters, which neither schema nor description covers.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map the address parameter to 'wallet address or ENS name' and implies chains/tokens act as filters with the five chains as defaults and 'ERC-20 contracts you add' as the token format. However, both optional params are typed as plain strings with no enum or format guidance — comma-separated lists? addresses or symbols? — which the description does not resolve.

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?

The opening names a precise resource ('Balances of a wallet address or ENS name') and scopes it to five named chains, then enumerates what is returned (native ETH/POL, USDC, USDT, DAI, custom ERC-20s, USD value, total). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like erc20_balance (single token) or solana_balance (different chain).

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?

The second sentence gives three concrete use cases: check funding, value a portfolio, confirm a payment arrived. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., 'for a single token balance use erc20_balance'), so routing is contextually clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Crypto, web, finance and app data tools 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?