ERC-20 token metadata on Base mainnet: name, symbol, decimals and total supply, read straight from the contract. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ERC-20 contract address on Base mainnet |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses the $0.001 cost, USDC/x402 payment method, that calling returns payment requirements, and that failed calls are never billed. It also implies a read-only operation. It could add auth or rate-limit details, but the cost and failure semantics are valuable.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and fields, cost and payment, and billing-on-failure behavior. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant or filler text.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the returned fields, states the network, and covers the payment/billing model. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the payment requirements response format, but this does not significantly hinder selection or invocation.
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 describes the single parameter as an 'ERC-20 contract address on Base mainnet' with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning about address format, checksum requirements, or example values, so it stays at the baseline for fully schema-documented parameters.
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 identifies the resource (ERC-20 token metadata on Base mainnet), the specific fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, total supply), and the operation ('read straight from the contract'). This distinguishes it from siblings like base_token_price, which focuses on price rather than metadata.
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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as base_token_price or base_contract_type. There is no 'use this when' or 'for X use Y instead' language, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.
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.