SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Etherscan public address-label cloud: entity labels

crypto_etherscan_label_cloud

Read-only

Etherscan public address-label cloud: entity labels (e.g. Binance, 0x Protocol) with counts of tagged accounts, transactions and tokens, from the label page's embedded data. Filter by name or take the top labels by total. Does not list individual deposit wallets and does not separate CEX deposit tags from other labels. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_iex_cloud_public when you need Real-time US stock, ETF or index quote: company name. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_etherscan_label_cloud"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Optional case-insensitive part of a label name, e.g. binance
`limit`	No	How many labels, 1 to 100 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`labels`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`labelCount`	No
`matchCount`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description still adds material context: the data comes from the label page's embedded data (a scraped, potentially stale source), the cost is $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, and failed calls are not charged. It stops short of pagination, rate limits, or freshness/caching behavior.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the scope exclusions are well placed. The trailing 'related tools' sentence about US stock quotes and the payment-rail detail are padding relative to the tool's actual job and dilute the front-loading.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With only two optional parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only/open-world, the description supplies what remains: data provenance, scope limits, and cost/payment mechanics. Freshness and pagination of the label list are the only real gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the 'name' filter is a lookup mode, and 'limit' selects the top labels by total count, which tells the agent the ordering the limit applies to rather than just the numeric range.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific resource (Etherscan public address-label cloud / entity labels) with concrete examples (Binance, 0x Protocol) and states the payload contains counts of tagged accounts, transactions and tokens. It also bounds scope by excluding individual deposit wallets and CEX deposit-tag separation, though it never contrasts itself with the many sibling crypto tools that also return address/entity data.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It offers two usage modes (filter by name, or take the top labels by total) and two exclusions, which is real guidance for calling it. However, the only named alternative, finance_iex_cloud_public, serves stock quotes and gives no help choosing between this and the other on-chain label/portfolio tools in the sibling list.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?