get_native_balanceGet the native coin (e.g. ETH) balance of an address, in wei.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Block tag. Default latest. | |
| address | Yes | Account address to query. | |
| 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?
The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the return unit ('in wei') and clarifies that the tool queries native coin balances rather than contracts or tokens, providing useful semantic context beyond the annotations.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the key scoping information (native coin, address, wei) and is immediately understandable.
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 read-only balance lookup, the description together with the fully described schema and safety annotations covers everything needed to call the tool correctly. The unit and resource are explicit, and no missing behavioral or return information is critical.
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 documents all three parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to repeat parameter details and adds no extra parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the native coin (e.g. ETH) balance of an address'. It also specifies the unit (wei), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from token balance queries.
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 phrase 'native coin' implies this is for native balances rather than token balances, but no sibling tool is explicitly named and no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage context is only implied, not stated.
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.