Free. Returns a complete, live contract audit of Base USDC — the same output shape as the paid audit tool, with the address fixed. Call this first to see what the paid tools return before spending anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the tool is 'Free' and returns a live audit, but does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only), authentication needs, or rate limits. The 'Free' hint is useful but incomplete for full behavioral transparency.
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 a compact two sentences: it leads with 'Free,' states the action, and gives a direct call-to-action. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, how it compares to the paid tool, and when to use it. The context is complete for an agent to decide to invoke it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Per rubric, zero-parameter tools get a baseline of 4. The description reinforces that no address is needed since it's fixed, which adds a semantic clarification.
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 returns a complete, live contract audit of Base USDC, with a fixed address. It explicitly distinguishes from the paid audit tool by noting the same output shape but with a fixed address, making it unambiguous which task it handles.
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?
It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to see what the paid tools return before spending anything.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (as a free preliminary check) and implies an alternative (the paid audit tool).
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.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: address pre-flight, allowance, contract audit, contract type, gas, portfolio, prices, tx status. Even the two pricing tools are clearly separated (Chainlink ETH/BTC vs. any token via Uniswap V3), so selection ambiguity is minimal.
All tools share the base_ prefix and snake_case, which is highly predictable. However, the pattern mixes noun-style names (base_allowance, base_gas, base_token) with verb-including names (base_simulate_transfer, base_tx_check), so it is not a pure verb_noun convention throughout.
Twelve tools is a well-scoped set for a Base-focused on-chain analytics server. Each tool provides a meaningful capability without bloating the surface, and the free demo tool is a sensible inclusion.
The server covers the main read/analytics lifecycle: address checks, contract verification, token metadata, pricing, gas, portfolio, allowances, simulation, and transaction confirmation. Minor gaps exist, such as no generic contract-state reader or non-synthetic historical deep dives, but the core domain is well served.