get_address_labelsGet the public nametag, labels and attributes for an address (token type, trust rating, contract name, source-code status, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Address to look up. | |
| chainid | No | Numeric chain id (e.g. 1=Ethereum, 56=BNB, 137=Polygon). Defaults to server config. |
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?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the kind of data returned, but it does not describe behavior such as error cases, response shape, or default chain-id handling. It adds moderate value beyond annotations but is not rich in behavioral detail.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides a useful parenthetical list of example attributes. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, making it compact and effective.
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?
With no output schema, the description provides a reasonable sense of return contents by listing categories such as trust rating and source-code status. It could be more explicit about default chain behavior and handling of unknown addresses, but for a simple read-only lookup with well-defined parameters, it is substantially complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with types, formats, and an example for chainid. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond indicating the result is tied to an address. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves address labels and attributes, with concrete examples like token type, trust rating, and contract name. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as get_contract_abi or get_token_info, making the tool's distinct purpose immediately recognizable.
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 clearly implies the use case: when an agent needs public metadata or labels for a blockchain address. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the domain and examples make it obvious when this tool is appropriate relative to the sibling tools.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct data types: balances, transactions, logs, contracts, tokens, gas, and chains. The main confusion risk is between get_transaction_status, get_transaction_receipt_status, and get_transaction_receipt, which all relate to transaction outcomes and could be easily misselected.
Every tool follows the get_<object> or get_<object>_<qualifier> snake_case pattern. The naming is highly predictable and makes the tool purpose evident from the name alone.
20 tools is on the heavier side, approaching the upper bound for a coherent MCP server. However, given Etherscan's broad read-only domain—addresses, transactions, contracts, tokens, logs, and gas—the count is defensible even if it feels somewhat large.
The toolset covers the major Etherscan data-access patterns: balances, normal/internal transactions, receipts, token transfers, contract ABI/source/creation, logs, and gas. Obvious gaps like fetching a block by number/hash or listing transactions within a block are missing, but agents can accomplish most explorer workflows.