load_base_pluginLoad a Base MCP plugin reference with WalletChan execution overrides prepended, enabling approved onchain wallet actions from a plugin slug.
Load an upstream Base MCP native plugin reference with WalletChan MCP execution overrides prepended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plugin | Yes | Base plugin slug, e.g. morpho, moonwell, uniswap, avantis, aerodrome, virtuals, bankr. Future safe slugs are allowed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It hints that execution overrides are prepended, but does not describe side effects, persistence, permissions, or what happens after loading.
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 sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, the jargon-heavy phrasing slightly reduces immediate clarity.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what loading a plugin reference does, whether it persists, and how it affects subsequent calls. It leaves these critical details unaddressed.
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 100%, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Load') and a resource ('upstream Base MCP native plugin reference'), but the term 'plugin reference' is jargon that an agent may not understand. It does not differentiate from siblings like run_base_plugin_cli or list_base_plugin_runners, leaving the exact outcome ambiguous.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or how it relates to sibling tools such as run_base_plugin_cli or list_base_plugin_runners.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.