Saldo de un token ERC-20, con los decimales del propio contrato.
Args:
red: `base` o `ethereum`.
token: Dirección del contrato del token.
direccion: Cartera cuya posición se quiere consultar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| red | Yes | ||
| token | Yes | ||
| direccion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema: the returned balance is scaled with the decimals read from the contract itself, and 'direccion' is framed as a read of a position. It omits error behavior for invalid addresses, supported-network limits, and any output shape detail.
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?
Two sentences plus a compact Args block, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by per-parameter meaning. No filler.
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?
For a three-parameter read-only query with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (balance with contract decimals) and each input. Only minor gaps remain around unsupported networks and failure modes.
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 no enum is declared, so the description does real work: it gives the allowed values for 'red' ('base' or 'ethereum') and clarifies that 'token' is a contract address and 'direccion' is the wallet being queried. Address-format or checksum expectations are still unstated.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: the balance ('saldo') of an ERC-20 token, qualified as ERC-20 to distinguish it from a generic native-balance tool. However, it never names the sibling 'saldo' explicitly, so the agent must infer the split between native and token balances.
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?
Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never references the sibling 'saldo'. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for ERC-20 positions and that 'saldo' covers the native case.
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.