Profile any Base wallet without signup or an API key: native and ERC-20 balances, bounded transfer activity, counterparties, contracts, freshness and an evidence hash. $0.01/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | Optional native/base/eth or ERC-20 contract address | |
| chain | No | base | |
| address | Yes | ||
| lookback_blocks | No | ||
| include_counterparties | No |
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 exist, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It states no signup/API key needed and mentions a cost, but does not explicitly say whether it's read-only or non-destructive. It does mention 'bounded transfer activity' which hints at limitations. It adds some value beyond schema but misses safety/behavioral details.
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 a single sentence that is efficient and packs key differentiators (no signup, cost, output categories). It is concise but could be reorganized slightly for clarity.
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 tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It lists output categories but doesn't explain what 'bounded transfer activity' means, how lookback_blocks affects results, or what the evidence hash is for. The lack of details about parameter behavior and output expectations leaves gaps.
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 only 20% (only asset has a description), and the tool description does not explain most parameters. It mentions 'bounded' and 'counterparties' but doesn't map to lookback_blocks or include_counterparties. It fails to clarify the meaning of the address parameter or how chain works. Description adds little beyond schema.
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's purpose: profiling a Base wallet, with explicit details about what it returns (balances, transfers, counterparties, freshness, evidence hash). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a comprehensive profile rather than a specific query (e.g., base_usdc_balance, base_transfer_search).
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 over siblings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteriaate (e.g., when to use base_usdc_balance instead). The description implies a general profiling use case, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.