ETH/USD and BTC/USD read live from Chainlink's on-chain price feeds on Base, with the feed's own description, decimals, update timestamp, age in seconds and a staleness flag. Costs $0.001 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the cost per call, that payment is required, that the tool returns payment requirements, and that failed calls are never billed. It also lists the data returned, giving clear insight into the tool's behavior.
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 core purpose, and adds essential behavioral details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, covering functionality, data fields, cost, and billing in a compact format.
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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool returns, how it is accessed (Chainlink feeds), the cost and payment mechanism, and the success/failure billing nuance. All critical context is present.
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 there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema shows. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no parameters, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.
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 reads live ETH/USD and BTC/USD price feeds from Chainlink on Base, with specific data fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like base_token_price by explicitly naming the asset pairs and the on-chain source, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides context for when to use the tool (for these specific price pairs) and notes cost and payment requirements, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for these pairs, but lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools like base_token_price.
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.