Native ETH balance of a Base mainnet address, incl. balance_usd (ETH price cross-call — no price oracle on ETH-only competitors), via multi-provider JSON-RPC. Cost: $0.005 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x-prefixed 20-byte Base address |
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, the description covers key behavioral aspects: network (Base mainnet), inclusion of USD price, multi-provider JSON-RPC, and cost per call. Missing details like error handling or rate limits, but sufficient for a simple read operation.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core function, then adding cost info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, network, and cost. It could specify return units (e.g., wei vs ETH) for completeness, but overall is adequate.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'address', which is described as a '0x-prefixed 20-byte Base address'. The tool description adds no further meaning, so baseline 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 clearly states it returns 'Native ETH balance of a Base mainnet address, incl. balance_usd', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like chain_token_balance.
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 mentions cost and multi-provider usage but does not explicitly guide when to use vs alternatives (e.g., chain_token_balance) or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.
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 tools are organized into clear families (chain, crypto, defi, pm, enrich, scan) and each targets a distinct data type. The preview tools are explicitly labeled as free samples, reducing but not eliminating confusion with their paid counterparts. Some overlap exists between chain_wallet and chain_balance, and between enrich_domain and enrich_tech_risk, but descriptions clarify the difference.
All tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern using snake_case (chain_balance, crypto_funding, enrich_domain). Preview tools consistently append '_preview' to their paid counterpart. The only minor variation is abbreviations like 'tx', 'pm', 'defi', but these are uniform.
At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The eight preview tools duplicate the functionality of their paid versions and inflate the count, though they serve a legitimate 'try before pay' purpose. The remaining 14 paid tools cover a wide range of risk data, making the count borderline appropriate.
The set covers on-chain balances, token security, DeFi yields, crypto prices, funding rates, prediction markets, domain enrichment, tech-risk CVE scanning, and MCP server auditing, which is a comprehensive risk toolkit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical data, no address reputation, no token price by address), but the core workflows are well covered.