Vitruveo Chain Tools MCP

token info

token_info

Read-only

Read ERC-20 token interface details and optionally check a holder’s balance at a specified block for on-chain analysis.

Instructions

Read ERC-20 interface information and optional holder balance.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "token_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`holder`	No
`address`	Yes
`blockNumber`	No	latest

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0-rc.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. Beyond that the description adds little: it does not say what fields the interface read returns, how non-ERC-20 or unverified addresses behave, or how blockNumber affects the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the vagueness of 'interface information' means the brevity comes partly at the cost of specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain the returned ERC-20 fields and the effect of each parameter. It covers the broad read purpose and the optional balance, but leaves an agent guessing on return shape and on the address/blockNumber semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to 'holder' (optional balance); it never explains that 'address' is the token contract or that 'blockNumber' enables historical reads at a given block.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('ERC-20 interface information') plus the optional holder balance, which distinguishes it from siblings like native_balance or contract_inspect. It stops short of enumerating what 'interface information' means, but the token-standard scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as native_balance, contract_inspect, or read_contract. The phrase 'optional holder balance' only weakly implies that passing a holder yields a balance; nothing states when to prefer this tool over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server