token_intel$0.005 per call — Base ERC-20 due-diligence: on-chain name, symbol, decimals and total supply via eth_call. Use to sanity-check a Base token address before interacting with it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / addressAdded value: +{
+ "description": "ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x...)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / qRemoved value: -{
- "description": "JSON or key=value input for the tool",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "address"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the cost ($0.005 per call) and the read-only mechanism (eth_call), which tells the agent this is a non-mutating on-chain lookup. It omits edge behavior—what happens for an address that is not a valid ERC-20 (revert, null fields?)—which keeps it out of the 5 range.
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 compact clauses: cost and capability first, then the intended use. Zero filler, front-loaded with the distinguishing facts.
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, but the description compensates by listing the four returned fields (name, symbol, decimals, total supply), so the agent knows the shape of the result. The remaining gap is failure/edge-case behavior, which is modest for a trivial one-address read.
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% for the single 'address' parameter, so the schema already documents format and chain. The description reinforces the Base/ERC-20 constraint but adds no syntax, casing, or checksum detail beyond it; baseline 3 for a fully covered schema is correct.
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?
Names a specific resource ('Base ERC-20') and enumerates exactly what is fetched: on-chain name, symbol, decimals and total supply. The mechanism ('via eth_call') and chain scope make it unmistakable and clearly distinct from the unrelated sibling tools (stock_quote, repo_diligence, etc.).
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?
'Use to sanity-check a Base token address before interacting with it' gives a concrete trigger context. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating exclusions (e.g. non-Base chains, non-ERC-20 contracts), but no sibling covers this domain so the absence is minor.
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.