Base Intel MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states what the tool returns and frames the operation as a non-mutating snapshot, which makes the behavior reasonably transparent. It does not mention edge cases or error behavior, but for a simple read-only aggregation tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the key purpose and then lists the concrete output components. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant elaboration.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only snapshot tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context about what the tool returns and the target resource. It could be more explicit about how the returned values are formatted or when to prefer sibling tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter 'address' is already described as '0x address on Base'. The description essentially repeats the same address scope without adding new semantic detail such as formatting requirements or accepted network variants, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a snapshot tool for a Base address and enumerates the specific data it returns: ETH balance, USDC balance, tx count, and contract status. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from siblings like gas_now and tx_status by focusing on a bundled address overview, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

The phrase 'One-call snapshot' implies the tool is for getting multiple address attributes in a single call, which provides some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like token_balance or token_info, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the value is current and reports both gwei and wei, which is useful. However, it does not mention data freshness, whether the price reflects a specific gas tier, or any caching behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or repeated schema information. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose and unit detail.

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 that the tool has no parameters and a very narrow purpose, the description is largely complete: it names the network, the quantity, and the units. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit indication of the response structure, since no output schema exists, but an agent can likely invoke and interpret the result given the clear unit specification.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies since the description correctly avoids inventing parameter constraints.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning the current Base network gas price and specifies the units (gwei and wei). It is distinguishable from the sibling tools like address_report, token_balance, and tx_status, which target different data domains. However, it lacks a specific action verb such as 'get' or 'fetch', so it narrowly misses a 5.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the intended use is inferable from the purpose, there is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or when another tool might be more appropriate. This is essentially purpose-only with no usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that both formatted and raw balance values are returned, and 'balance of a holder' implies a read-only query. Yet it does not mention failure behavior for invalid addresses or non-token contracts, nor how decimals/raw values are represented.

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 conveys resource, scope, network, and return format with no filler. Every phrase 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with fully documented parameters, the description plus schema cover the essential details: network, token, address, and return shape (formatted + raw). There is no output schema, so the return hint is valuable and present; a note on decimal handling would make it more complete.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds only the ERC-20 and holder context, which maps naturally to token and address, but provides no extra semantic details beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (ERC-20 token balance), the holder scope, and the network (Base), and the parenthetical 'formatted + raw' signals return format. It is unambiguous, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', and does not explicitly compare against sibling tools.

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?

The use case is implied: call this when you need a holder's ERC-20 balance on Base. However, it does not state when to prefer this over token_info or address_report, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only metadata lookup and lists the exact properties returned, but it does not mention error behavior for non-ERC-20 addresses, decimal formatting, or how total supply is denominated. This is minimally transparent but not richly detailed.

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, well-structured sentence front-loads the purpose and then lists the returned fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only metadata lookup without an output schema, the description states the chain, the token type, and every value returned: name, symbol, decimals, and total supply. The schema supplies the required input format, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, including the expected format '0x followed by 40 hex characters'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the ERC-20 and Base context, which is largely implicit in the schema.

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?

The description identifies a metadata lookup for an ERC-20 token and enumerates the returned fields: name, symbol, decimals, and total supply. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but the intended operation is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings such as token_balance.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus address_report, gas_now, token_balance, or tx_status. The only context is the 'Base' chain, which is a scope cue rather than an alternative-selection rule.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Look up' signals a read-only query and the field list indicates the response contents, but there is no mention of behavior for missing transactions, error cases, or any limitations.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element, from the lookup verb to the comma-separated field list, 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description is largely complete: it names the target chain, the key parameter, and the output fields in absence of an output schema. Only error/not-found behavior is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and the hash parameter is already well-described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond restating that the lookup is by hash, so the moderate baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'a Base transaction by hash,' then lists the specific fields returned (status, from, to, value, block, gas used). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools by name.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent can infer this tool should be used when a Base transaction needs to be inspected by hash. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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