Skip to main content
Glama

Avalanche AVAX MCP

by io.github.Airpote

onchain_lookup

PRIMARY lookup tool — use this (not raw RPC) to resolve/describe any on-chain identifier in one call: an EVM address (native + token balances, recent txs, contract metadata + isContract), a contract/token (metadata + deployment + recent transfers), an NFT (collection + tokenId), a tx hash, a subnet ID, a NodeID validator, a P-/X-Chain account (P-…/X-… → P-Chain balance), or a chain name/id. Use this for any address balance / contract-info / token / identity question. kind auto-detects; network is inferred from P-/X-Chain prefixes. Backed by Glacier + P-Chain RPC.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoEntity kind (default: auto-detect from value)
valueYesThe identifier: 0x address / 0x tx hash / NodeID-… / subnetId / chain name or id
chainIdNoEVM chain ID for EVM kinds (default: C-Chain for the network)
includeNoExtra data for an address (e.g. ["nfts"])
networkNoNetwork (default: mainnet)
tokenIdNoNFT token ID (kind=nft)

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions auto-detection of kind, network inference from P-/X-Chain prefixes, and backing by Glacier + P-Chain RPC. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. For a primary lookup tool, this is acceptable but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence with multiple clauses and parentheticals. While it conveys all necessary information, it could be more scannable (e.g., using bullet points). It is adequately sized but lacks front-loading of the most critical information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lacks any mention of the output format or structure of the lookup results. With no output schema provided, the agent needs to infer return values. It names data sources (Glacier, P-Chain RPC) but not what the response contains, making it incomplete for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters described). The description adds value by explaining auto-detection for 'kind' and network inference from prefixes, which goes beyond the schema's enum lists. It also consolidates the entity types in prose, aiding interpretation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a PRIMARY lookup tool for any on-chain identifier, enumerating specific entity types (EVM address, contract, token, NFT, tx hash, subnet, validator, chain name/id, P-/X-Chain account) and explicitly contrasts with raw RPC. This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like blockchain_get_* functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises to use this tool instead of raw RPC and for any address/contract/token/identity question. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context of siblings like blockchain_lookup_* implies it covers them. A clear usage context is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Avalanche AVAX MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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 Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources