AgentWallet MCP Server

get_token_info

Retrieves ERC-20 token name, symbol, and decimals from a contract address to verify details before transfers or approvals.

Instructions

Get the name, symbol, and decimals of any ERC-20 token by its contract address. Useful for discovering token details before transfers or approvals.

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "chain_id": "<chain_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_token_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	ERC-20 token contract address
`chain_id`	Yes	Chain ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.8Oct 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / chain_id / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / chain_id / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
First observedv1.7.3Mar 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only metadata lookup and the return fields are listed, but the description does not discuss error behavior for non-ERC-20 contracts, unsupported chains, or whether it makes an on-chain call.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful usage note. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned metadata fields and gives usage context. It could be more complete by mentioning chain_id handling or failure behavior, but the essentials are present.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'by its contract address' and does not explain chain_id or add syntax beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get ERC-20 token metadata (name, symbol, decimals) by contract address. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_token_balance or transfer_token, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear usage context: 'Useful for discovering token details before transfers or approvals.' This helps an agent know when to call it, but it does not state exclusions or explicitly compare it with sibling tools such as check_token_risk.

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