Aether: Base onchain data & token risk (x402)

base_call

Read-only

Simulate a read-only contract call on Base (eth_call) without sending a transaction: returns the raw result or the revert reason. Use it to dry-run a call before signing. Price: $0.01 USDC on Base via x402.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "base_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`data`	Yes
`from`	No
`value`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context beyond that: it returns either the raw result or the revert reason, and it discloses a cost ($0.01 USDC via x402) which the annotations do not convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation followed by usage and cost. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

It covers return behavior, dry-run use, and cost, which matters since there is no output schema. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the omission of any parameter meaning leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters (to, data, from, value), and the description says nothing about any of them. With no schema prose to lean on, the description should explain at least the required to/data pair, but it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('simulate a read-only contract call on Base (eth_call)') plus scope ('without sending a transaction'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling base_estimate_gas or base_tx because the eth_call semantic and read-only nature are explicit.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Use it to dry-run a call before signing.' That tells the agent when to reach for it, but names no alternative tools and states no exclusions.

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

All Aether: Base onchain data & token risk (x402) 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?