ETH and USDC balances for up to 20 Base addresses in a single call, with per-address funded flags and totals. One request instead of forty RPC round trips. Costs $0.003 per call, paid in USDC over x402 on Base. Calling this tool returns the payment requirements; failed calls are never billed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | Yes | Comma-separated Base addresses, max 20 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost per call, the payment method (USDC over x402), and that failed calls are never billed. It also notes that calling the tool returns payment requirements, which is a behavioral detail. While it doesn't describe side effects beyond billing, these are the most relevant risks for a read-only portfolio query, so it is adequately transparent.
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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by efficiency and billing details. Every sentence adds value—purpose, benefit, cost, and payment behavior—with no redundancy or fluff.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, input constraints, output indication (balances and funded flags), cost, payment method, and failure behavior. There are no obvious gaps that an agent would need to guess.
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 already fully documents the single parameter (addresses) with a description of comma-separated Base addresses and a max of 20. The tool description reiterates the limit but adds no new semantic meaning about the parameter format or usage beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 function: retrieving ETH and USDC balances for multiple Base addresses in one call, including per-address funded flags and totals. It specifies the resource (Base addresses), the action (fetch balances), and the scope (up to 20 addresses), distinguishing it from sibling tools like single-address checks.
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 you need balances for multiple addresses efficiently—by highlighting 'one request instead of forty RPC round trips.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as using base_address_check for a single address. It does provide cost and payment context, which aids in deciding, but not a direct comparison.
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.