address_labelsResolve public labels for an EVM address, including Blockscout tags, ENS name, token-list matches, known spender labels, and OFAC SDN screening across supported chains.
Public labels for an EVM address: Blockscout name/tags/token, ENS primary name, token-list match, known spender name, OFAC SDN check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance by naming the aggregated data sources (Blockscout, ENS, token lists, OFAC), but says nothing about rate limits, latency, or coverage gaps across chains.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that is densely informative with zero filler. Every token (each label source) 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return categories, which is exactly what the agent needs for an aggregated lookup. The remaining gap is usage/routing guidance rather than return-value disclosure.
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%, so the description carries the burden of parameter meaning but adds none. The only hints ('EVM address') are already implied by the schema's enum and address regex, leaving chain/address semantics unexplained in the description.
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 the specific resource (public labels for an EVM address) and enumerates the label sources it returns (Blockscout name/tags/token, ENS, token-list, known spender, OFAC SDN). However it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like inspect_address or sanctions_check.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. With siblings such as inspect_address and sanctions_check that overlap on address inspection and OFAC screening, the agent is left to infer routing entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.