wallet_dossierProfile of a Base address: EOA vs contract, balance, activity band, flags. $0.01 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Base address to profile (0x-prefixed, 42 chars; EOA or contract) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about what the profile includes and the per-call price, though it does not disclose flag semantics, data freshness, or return structure.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key output dimensions, ending with the price. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use case, the address scope, and the kind of data returned. It stops short of detailing exact response fields or edge cases, but it is reasonably complete for its simplicity.
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% for the single address parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's own description of a Base address, so it receives the baseline score.
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 profiles a Base address and lists concrete outputs: EOA vs contract, balance, activity band, flags. It is distinguishable from siblings through the 'Base address' scope, though it never explicitly names an alternative.
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 about when to use this tool versus siblings like data_portfolio or token_verdict. The description implies address-level profiling but provides no exclusions, preconditions, or alternative routing.
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.