Look up a Base wallet address: native ETH plus balances for a curated list of 513 tokens, read directly from Base chain state via public RPC with a self-hosted reader (no third-party data API). The response includes a coverage field: tokens outside the list with no transfers in the discovery window (default about 28 hours) are not reported. Balances only; no USD valuation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window | No | ||
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the data source (direct Base chain read via public RPC, self-hosted, no third-party API), the discovery-window default of ~28 hours, and the key limitation that uncovered tokens without recent transfers are omitted. It stops short of stating rate limits, failure modes, or address-format validation.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the caveats, with no filler. The coverage sentence is dense but each clause carries real information about the returned data.
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?
No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of truth, and it covers data provenance, scope (513 curated tokens), the coverage caveat, and the absence of USD values. What is missing is the response shape beyond the coverage field, error behavior, and address validation, which are minor for a read-only lookup.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for two bare parameters. It partially does: 'discovery window (default about 28 hours)' explains the optional window parameter's purpose and default (though not its unit or maximum), and the address is implicitly a Base-format address. That is meaningful but incomplete compensation for the coverage gap.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource (look up a Base wallet address) and enumerates exactly what is returned: native ETH plus balances for a curated 513-token list. It does not mention the sibling wallet-lookup-pro, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which of the two to pick, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Balances only; no USD valuation' and 'Base chain state' signal when this tool is and isn't appropriate, but there are no explicit when-to-use instructions and no routing to wallet-lookup-pro or token-safety. An agent must infer the boundary conditions.
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.