verify_paymentDecode ERC-20 transfers in a Base transaction: amounts, counterparties, confirmations. $0.02 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txhash | Yes | Base transaction hash to decode (0x-prefixed, 66 chars) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the $0.02 per-call cost and clarifying that the tool decodes transfer-level details rather than simply returning a boolean. Edge cases are not discussed, but the annotation coverage mitigates this.
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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action, resource, and key outputs, and the second adds the cost signal. No filler, no repetition of schema fields, and every word contributes.
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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description provides the network (Base), asset type (ERC-20), and expected output categories (amounts, counterparties, confirmations). It does not describe the exact return shape or failure behavior, but the annotations and detailed schema parameter cover the essential invocation requirements.
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%; the txhash property already documents the required format (0x-prefixed, 66 chars). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Decode') and clearly identifies the resource: ERC-20 transfers in a Base transaction. It enumerates the key outputs (amounts, counterparties, confirmations), which differentiates it from siblings like payment_info or verify_token by network and asset scope.
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 Base-transaction scope implies when this tool is relevant, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. An agent must infer the distinction from sibling names rather than being told, for example, when to choose verify_payment over payment_info.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by domain prefix (data_, security_, validate_, verify_) and describe distinct outputs. A couple of pairs like token_verdict vs verify_token or data_portfolio vs wallet_dossier could be confused until descriptions are read, but the descriptions resolve the ambiguity.
The majority of tools follow a predictable prefix_subject pattern, e.g. data_block, security_tls, validate_iban, verify_payment. A few outliers like html_to_markdown, text_diff, wallet_dossier, and token_verdict use different conventions, but the overall system remains readable.
20 tools is on the heavy side for the typical MCP server and sits in the 16–25 'feels heavy' zone. Most tools have a legitimate purpose, but the five validate_* identifier tools plus two generic utilities could feel like surface area bloat.
The server covers a broad and coherent read/validation domain: chain data, token safety, payments, security checks, and identifier validators. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of detailed historical transaction/activity data and no general network/domain security scan beyond email, TLS, and typosquat.