evm_portfolioNative balance plus the balance of every token you list, on one chain, in a single paid call - each with symbol and decimals already applied. One request instead of one per token. Flat $0.001 per call, paid over x402 (USDC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | ethereum | polygon | arbitrum | optimism. | |
| tokens | No | Up to 20 ERC20 contract addresses. | |
| address | Yes | Wallet to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is paid (flat $0.001 via x402) and that outputs are pre-formatted with symbol and decimals. It does not mention error handling or default chain behavior, but the core behavioral traits are covered adequately.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The core functionality is front-loaded, followed by the batch benefit and pricing. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description explains the purpose and pricing, but does not clarify that the 'chain' parameter is required (schema marks it optional) or what happens if omitted. It also lacks details on failure modes or maximum token count (schema has that). For a paid call, this ambiguity could mislead an agent into omitting the chain.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the native balance is always included in addition to the listed tokens, and that symbols/decimals are applied in output. This goes beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions.
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's function: it retrieves the native balance plus balances of listed tokens in one call, with symbols and decimals applied. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like evm_balance or evm_erc20_balance by emphasizing the batch capability ('one request instead of one per token').
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 multiple token balances on one chain, instead of making separate calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single token balance). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.