Base mainnet JSON-RPC helper. Params: { method?, params?, address?, block? } (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/base-rpc Payment: x402 protocol — send X-PAYMENT header with base64 payment payload, or X-API-Key / X-Owner-Key / Bearer token to bypass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no behavior annotations present, the description discloses the payment mechanism (x402, USDC cost, API key bypass) which is useful operational context. However, it does not describe the response format, error behavior, or supported RPC methods, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 compact and structured: three sentences cover purpose, parameters, HTTP equivalent, and payment. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the payment details are clearly separated, avoiding excessive length.
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 the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should more thoroughly explain the tool's behavior and return values. It covers payment and param shape but omits what the RPC call actually does, supported methods, or expected output, leaving the picture incomplete for an RPC helper.
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?
The input schema is empty with additionalProperties true, so the description's list of parameter names (method, params, address, block) adds necessary structure. While types and meanings are not explained, providing these keys is valuable beyond the empty schema; the 0-param baseline supports a moderate score.
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 identifies the tool as a 'Base mainnet JSON-RPC helper' and lists the expected parameters, making its role fairly clear. It distinguishes from siblings like eth_rpc by specifying the Base chain, though the generic term 'helper' is not fully explicit about executing RPC calls.
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 Base mainnet JSON-RPC calls and provides HTTP/payment context, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like eth_rpc or give exclusions. Context is present, but no clear alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are exact duplicates (e.g., wallet_analysis/wallet_analyzer, honeypot_check/rugpull_detector, defi_yield/defi_yield_rates) with identical descriptions, and many overlapping scanners (squeeze_scanner variants). An agent cannot reliably distinguish these tools.
Names are all snake_case, but conventions vary wildly: some are resource names (btc_price), some are actions (list_magnets), some are generic utilities (calculator), and duplicates use different naming patterns for the same function (wallet_analysis vs wallet_analyzer). No consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern.
139 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold. The scope is a grab-bag of unrelated domains (crypto, FDA, SEC, utilities, web scraping), suggesting no curation.
The set is a shallow pile of read-only queries and utilities with no lifecycle management for any one domain. Many sub-areas have only one or two tools, and duplicates occupy slots where distinct operations should be. The lack of a clear domain makes completeness impossible to assess, but the surface is redundant rather than comprehensive.