Wallet bundle: ETH balance + balance_usd (ETH price cross-call) + tx count + contract-code check (EIP-7702 delegated-EOA aware) for a Base mainnet address, in one call. 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the bundled nature, EIP-7702 awareness, and cost. Does not mention error behavior or authentication, but the read-only intent is clear.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with 'Wallet bundle', covers all key aspects without fluff. Every part 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?
Adequately describes inputs and outputs for a simple tool. No output schema, but the return values are listed. Could mention output format but not required for basic usage.
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 100% with a single parameter described. Description adds network specificity ('Base mainnet') beyond schema, enhancing understanding. No additional parameter details needed.
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 is a bundle for a wallet, listing exact outputs (ETH balance, balance_usd, tx count, contract-code check) and targeting Base mainnet. This distinguishes it from siblings like chain_balance (only ETH balance) or 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?
Implicitly guides use: when you need all these metrics in one call. Mentions cost ($0.005) and the cross-call for ETH price. Not explicit about when not to use, but context with siblings provides enough clarity.
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.