wallet-portfolioFetch token balances for an Ethereum/Base wallet address. Returns ETH, USDC, WETH, AXIOM, and BNKR balances on Base with current USD values from DeFiLlama price data. $0.01/call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Ethereum/Base wallet address (0x...) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokens | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| total_usd | Yes | ||
| fetched_at | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them, including the data source (DeFiLlama price data) and the cost ($0.01/call). This is valuable extra information without contradicting 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary verb 'Fetch', and includes essential details (wallet address, token list, network, USD values, cost) without any unnecessary wording. 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?
With only one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the core functionality, return values, data source, and cost. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it does not mention error cases or rate limits, which are not critical for this simple tool.
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 has 100% coverage, describing the 'address' parameter with a pattern and explanation. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Fetch token balances for an Ethereum/Base wallet address.' It specifies the resource (wallet portfolio), the action (fetch token balances), and the specific tokens and network, making it distinct from siblings which are unrelated to wallet balance retrieval.
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 usage when querying token balances for an Ethereum/Base wallet address but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since the siblings are not similar, the implied context is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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 domain: revenue auditing, token strategy, grants, gas, security, workflow design, prediction markets, repo health, and wallet balances. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making selection unambiguous for an agent.
All names use lowercase hyphenated format, but prefixes vary (agent-, base-, mcp-, etc.) and some are descriptive while others are domain-based. This is mostly consistent but lacks a uniform pattern like verb-noun.
9 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused server. Each tool addresses a distinct need for autonomous agents on Base, and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
The set covers analysis, planning, and monitoring aspects well (revenue, token, grants, gas, security, workflow, odds, repo, portfolio). Missing execution-oriented tools like token deployment or transaction sending, but for an intelligence-focused suite, this is reasonable.