token_balancesERC-20 balances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| contracts | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | The address queried | |
| pageKey | No | Pagination key for next page | |
| tokenBalances | No | Array of token balance objects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as what is returned or how contracts are handled. The description is a bare label, not a behavioral specification.
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?
'ERC-20 balances' is extremely concise but under-specified, resembling a fragment rather than a structured description. It saves words but sacrifices clarity, which is not true conciseness.
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?
With three parameters, a required address, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema exists, but the description fails to explain input semantics or usage scenarios.
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%, and the description does not explain any parameters (address, chain, contracts). There is no compensation for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without crucial input semantics.
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 'ERC-20 balances' identifies the resource and narrows it to ERC-20 tokens, but it lacks a verb and does not specify that balances belong to a given address. It partially distinguishes from siblings like token_allowance or token_metadata, but remains vague without stating it returns balances for the input address.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as asset_transfers or token_metadata. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate selection.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently described as identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve question-answering/research, and the six Polymarket tools heavily overlap in finding and evaluating trading edges. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent could easily route to the wrong variant.
The set mixes conventions: Pipeworx tools mostly use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but memory tools are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and the Ethereum tools are inconsistent (nft_metadata vs nfts_owned vs nft_owners, token_balances vs token_allowance). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the surface harder to predict.
At 40 tools, the server is oversized for the apparent core purpose of an Alchemy Ethereum interface. There is also significant redundancy: multiple ask/deep-research entry points and a dense suite of Polymarket analysis tools add bulk that could be consolidated.
The Ethereum side is mostly read-only convenience wrappers (NFTs, tokens, asset transfers) plus a generic eth_call catch-all, but lacks dedicated transaction sending, block/transaction detail, logs, or ENS conveniences. The rest of the tool surface is a sprawling collection of unrelated data-research, memory, and subscription features, making the overall implied domain incoherent and likely to leave obvious gaps for users expecting a focused Ethereum server.