ERC-20 token risk screen on Base. $0.01 per call in USDC — no account, no API key.
Returns risk_score(0-100), signals, token metadata, and a real Uniswap v3 on-chain slippage curve. Holder concentration and token age are not available (would need an indexer) — marked "not_available", never guessed.
address: 0x-prefixed ERC-20 contract address on Base
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing, authentication requirements, output contents, and explicitly flags unavailable fields, noting they are marked 'not_available' and never guessed. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but 'screen' and 'returns' strongly imply it.
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 compact and well-structured with line breaks separating purpose/cost, outputs, limitations, and parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes unique information, with no filler 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the input, network, return contents, limitations, and authentication. It lacks explicit error-handling details, such as behavior for invalid or non-ERC-20 addresses, which is a minor gap.
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 0%, yet the description fully compensates: 'address: 0x-prefixed ERC-20 contract address on Base' adds the required prefix format, contract type, and network. This is exactly the detail an agent needs beyond the bare 'string' schema.
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 opens with 'ERC-20 token risk screen on Base,' naming a specific verb, resource, and network. It also enumerates concrete outputs (risk_score, signals, token metadata, slippage curve), making the tool's function unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like gas_price or inspect_wallet.
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 clear context for when to use this tool: when an ERC-20 token risk screening on Base is needed. It also states the lack of account/API-key requirements and the $0.01 cost. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
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 maps to a distinct concern: gas pricing, wallet inspection, token risk, transaction simulation, and service/payment meta-info. Even the two informational tools are cleanly separated by their purpose. No likely misselection.
Names mix verb_noun patterns like inspect_wallet and simulate_transaction with noun-based patterns like gas_price and service_info. All are readable and consistently snake_case, but there is no single predictable naming convention.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a focused Base read-only lens service. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose.
The tool set covers the main Base workflows: gas pricing, wallet inspection, token risk screening, and transaction simulation. Missing transaction/block lookup and full portfolio enumeration are moderate gaps, but some are explicitly noted as indexer-dependent limitations.