get_token"Token info for [contract]" / "what is contract [0x...]" / "ERC-20 / NFT metadata for [token]" — token contract metadata: name, symbol, decimals, total supply, holder count, contract type. Use for on-chain token characterization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| contract | Yes | Token contract address |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned metadata fields (name, symbol, etc.) and the on-chain scope, providing useful detail beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
The description is concise, using example queries and a clear list of returned fields. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to understand.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It lists the key metadata fields and provides examples. It is complete for a simple token info tool, though it could mention supported chains or error handling briefly.
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 coverage is 50%: the 'contract' parameter has a description, but 'chain' does not. The description does not explain the 'chain' parameter explicitly, though the example implies it is a blockchain identifier. This adds marginal value, but the description could better compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 clearly states the tool returns token metadata including name, symbol, decimals, total supply, holder count, and contract type. It provides example queries and specifies the use case for on-chain token characterization, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_address_token_transfers.
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?
The description explicitly states 'Use for on-chain token characterization,' indicating when to use the tool. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear given the uniqueness of the tool among siblings.
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 tool set includes multiple overlapping tools for predictions (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) and data lookups (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and mixes blockchain tools with unrelated services, making it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (get_address, list_chains), others are multi-word phrases (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities), and styles mix snake_case and camelCase erratically.
With 39 tools, the surface is bloated for a blockchain explorer. Many tools are unrelated to blockchain, inflating the count well beyond what is necessary for the server's stated purpose.
The server is named 'Blockscout' but includes mostly non-blockchain tools, leaving the blockchain domain severely incomplete. Even the blockchain-specific tools miss common operations like event logs or internal transactions.