MCP Etherscan Server

get-token-portfolio

Retrieve all token balances for an Ethereum address, including ERC20, ERC721, and ERC1155 tokens.

Instructions

Get all token balances for an address across ERC20/ERC721/ERC1155 standards

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": "get-token-portfolio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Ethereum address
`network`	No	Network name or chain ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Mar 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the tool returns balances across standards. It does not disclose limits, whether it includes zero balances, pagination, support for native ETH, or performance implications, leaving significant gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place.

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?

Given the parameter count (2) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not address response format, error handling, or practical usage details for a portfolio retrieval tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying 'across ERC20/ERC721/ERC1155 standards', clarifying the scope. However, it does not elaborate on parameter constraints or usage nuances beyond schema defaults.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Get all token balances for an address across ERC20/ERC721/ERC1155 standards' clearly specifies the action (get balances) and the resource (address) with explicit token standards, differentiating it from siblings like get-token-holders or get-token-info.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get-token-transfers, get-token-info). It implies usage for portfolio retrieval but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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