Paid ($0.02). Get the next transaction nonce for an Ethereum address.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"address": "<address>"
},
"name": "chain_nonce"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x-prefixed EVM address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a $0.02 cost, which an agent needs before calling a paid endpoint, but it omits the single most consequential behavior: whether the nonce reflects the pending pool or the latest confirmed block, plus the return encoding (hex quantity vs integer).
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 short sentences with zero waste. The paid cost is front-loaded, which is the right priority for an agent deciding whether to invoke a metered tool.
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 read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool is but not what it returns or how it resolves the pending-versus-confirmed ambiguity. Adequate to select the tool, insufficient to predict its output confidently.
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% and there is only one required parameter, so the schema already defines the address format. The description adds only the informal 'Ethereum address' framing, which the schema's '0x-prefixed EVM address' already covers more precisely; baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the next transaction nonce') and scopes it to an Ethereum address, which is enough to separate it from siblings like chain_balance or chain_block_number. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
There is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer that this is called before submitting a transaction. No prerequisites, no alternatives, and no note about whether it applies only to EOAs or also to contracts.
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.