Check wallet balance, USDC balance, quota state, and whether the next /fetch call will succeed without payment. Use before spending — tells the agent exactly how much to fund.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | The Ethereum wallet address to query (0x...). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Human-readable status report as text content | |
| structuredContent | No | Machine-readable status fields |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a check-only operation and that it returns actionable funding guidance. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or quota consumption details, but 'status' and 'Check' strongly imply read-only semantics.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's scope, and the second gives immediate actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and decision value. It could mention potential edge cases like invalid addresses, but nothing essential appears missing for the agent to call it correctly.
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 schema already fully describes the single 'address' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('Check') and concrete resources: wallet balance, USDC balance, quota state, and next-call success. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling nanoparse_fetch by framing this as the pre-flight status check rather than the action itself.
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 before spending' gives explicit timing guidance and tells the agent to call this before funding. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with nanoparse_fetch, so it just misses the top score.
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.
The two tools are completely distinct: one fetches and parses URLs, the other checks payment and quota status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools share a consistent prefix 'nanoparse_' followed by a clear verb ('fetch', 'status'). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal, but the narrow scope of URL fetching with payment status justifies a small surface. Still, it feels slightly thin for a service that involves payments and quota management.
The core workflow is covered: check status, fetch URL with built-in payment handling. There is no dedicated payment/funding tool, but the fetch tool's integrated payment flow and status tool make the surface reasonably complete for its stated purpose.