Compatibility alias for onchain_lookup address details. Prefer onchain_lookup for new clients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | EVM address (0x...) | |
| chainId | No | 43114 for C-Chain mainnet, 43113 for Fuji | 43114 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states it is an alias, without explaining what the behavior actually is, whether it is read-only, or what response to expect. The mention of 'address details' is vague and does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the tool name.
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, tightly packed with the essential message: it is an alias and the preferred alternative is onchain_lookup. No wasted words or redundant information.
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?
The tool is a simple alias with full schema coverage, but the description does not explain what 'address details' entail, leaving the agent to infer or search for onchain_lookup. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not rich; the deprecation guidance is useful but the actual behavior is under-specified.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already fully documents both parameters (address and chainId), so the description does not need to compensate.
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 it is a 'Compatibility alias for onchain_lookup address details', which clearly identifies the tool as an alias for address detail lookups. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the preferred alternative, though it does not use a strong verb like 'retrieves' or 'looks up'.
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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Prefer onchain_lookup for new clients.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative, fulfilling the when/when-not requirement clearly.
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.
Many tools are redundant due to compatibility aliases (avalanche_docs_* vs docs_*, blockchain_get_* vs onchain_lookup) and overlapping functionality (chain_stats vs onchain_query, onchain_activity vs onchain_query ops, acp_list vs info_acps). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool when multiple appear to serve the same purpose, despite descriptions clarifying aliases.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use noun_verb (acp_list, docs_fetch), some use verb_noun (build_plan), and others use prefixes like platform_get_, info_get_, and onchain_. The mix of styles (snake_case, noun phrases, verb phrases) makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 48 tools, the count is high and inflated by compatibility aliases and granular platform_get_* wrappers. The scope spans multiple domains (docs, on-chain, platform API, ACPs, console), which could be better modularized. Many tools are trivial variants (e.g., platform_get_block vs platform_get_block_by_height) adding unnecessary bulk.
The server provides thorough read-only coverage for Avalanche: docs search, ACP management, on-chain lookups, indexed stats, platform API getters, and console flow guidance. While there is no transaction submission (likely intentional), the surface covers most queries a developer would need, with minor gaps like detailed token transfer history.
