Free read-only EIP-7702 delegation / wallet-sweeper check for EVM addresses on 8 chains
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are fairly easy to tell apart: one performs a read-only delegation check, the other only explains how to purchase the paid report. There is mild overlap since the check tool already returns a link to the paid report, making full_report_info partially redundant, but the free/paid boundary is clear.
Both names use snake_case and are descriptive, which is consistent at the casing level. However, one follows a verb_noun action pattern (check_7702_delegation) while the other is a noun phrase (full_report_info), a minor deviation.
Two tools is very thin for a server whose stated purpose spans checking multiple chains and selling a full report. The paid-report explanation could reasonably be folded into the check tool's output, leaving an under-scoped surface.
The core read-only check is present, but there is no tool to actually retrieve or purchase the full report—payment is pushed entirely to the external x402 flow, creating a dead end for agents. The info tool partially compensates by describing the purchase path.
Free, read-only: is an EIP-7702 delegation (possible wallet sweeper) set on this EVM address on Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, OP, Polygon, Gnosis, Unichain? Returns delegate addresses and a link to the paid full report (0.01 USDC via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | EVM address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces 'free, read-only' while adding useful context: the supported chain set, the returned delegate addresses, and the upsell link with its price. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but adds genuine behavioral context beyond 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?
One tight sentence with the key qualifier ('Free, read-only') front-loaded, followed by the chain list and return value. The chain enumeration is long but earns its place by defining scope; otherwise there is no wasted prose.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately states what comes back (delegate addresses and a link to the paid report). Combined with the chain coverage and cost note, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a brief note on empty/no-delegation results would make it fully complete.
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% and the single address parameter is fully documented with a hex pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the address is evaluated across Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, OP, Polygon, Gnosis, and Unichain, which gives meaningful scope context but no extra syntax or format detail.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: checks whether an EIP-7702 delegation is set on an EVM address, and enumerates the supported chains. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by pointing to the paid full report, so an agent can tell the free check apart from full_report_info.
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 makes clear this is the free, read-only check and explicitly mentions the paid full report at 0.01 USDC, which implies the alternative path. It does not state explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond that, but the context is clear enough to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
How to buy the full sweeper report (bytecode heuristic, source verification, risk, advice) via x402. Does not pay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Does not pay.' It adds useful context about the x402 payment mechanism and the report's contents, though it does not describe the return format.
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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and key constraint are stated immediately.
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 zero-parameter informational tool with readOnlyHint already set, the description covers what the tool is and what it does not do. It could optionally mention what the informational output looks like, but the core context is present.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate given the empty input schema.
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?
States a clear purpose: explaining how to purchase the full sweeper report via x402, with a parenthetical list of report contents. It is specific about the resource and mechanism, though it does not need sibling differentiation since the only sibling is unrelated.
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?
Implies usage when an agent needs to know how to buy the full report, and clarifies that this tool itself does not pay. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_7702_delegationfull_report_infoPaid read-only reports for 1–5 EVM addresses across four networks; 0.02 supported stablecoin direct.
Multi-chain wallet intelligence: balances, transactions, ENS, OFAC screening across 7 chains.
Read-only honeypot, holder and liquidity scam checks for tokens across 64 networks.
Free read-only crypto whale-tracking & market-data MCP tools across 14 chains. No auth.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.