ERC-20 balance and allowance from the chain in one call: does this owner hold enough, and has it approved enough for a given spender? Live, no node of your own. Chains: base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon. Paid tool: $0.002 per call via x402 (USDC on Base, Arbitrum, Polygon or Solana).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| owner | Yes | ||
| token | Yes | ||
| amount | No | ||
| spender | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that this is a paid tool ($0.002 per call via x402), that it's live with no node needed, and names all 5 supported chains. This is strong cooperative disclosure for a financial-cost tool. The only gap is not describing error behavior or latency, but for a read-only status check 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?
Three dense sentences with zero filler. The description front-loads the core purpose, then chains, then pricing. Every clause earns its place—even the pricing detail is relevant because it warns of financial cost. Could arguably be tightened, but it's efficient for the information density.
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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the business purpose well but leaves gaps. Return format is unspecified (what does the response look like—booleans, balances, both?). Param formats for token/spender/owner aren't given, and there's no guidance on what 'amount' defaulting to 0 means semantically. It's a solid description but not fully complete for a paid chain call.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantic meaning of owner (holds balance), spender (allowance grantee), and amount (threshold to check) through the framing of 'does this owner hold enough, and has it approved enough'. However, chain, token, and spender formats (addresses? symbols?) and the meaning of 'amount' as a threshold aren't explicitly clarified, leaving ambiguity.
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 it returns ERC-20 balance AND allowance in one call, specifically answering whether the owner holds enough and has approved enough for a spender. The verb+resource ('balance and allowance from the chain') is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like tx_status and market_data which deal with different on-chain concerns.
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 implies usage context (checking token balance/allowance for a transaction) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. It names supported chains and mentions it's paid, giving some context, but doesn't offer exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implicit scope of ERC-20 tokens.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are clearly separate (validate_vat, validate_iban, token_status, tx_status), but several overlap by combining the same core checks: check_counterparty_eu, must_verify_before_pay, tx_preflight, and invoice_to_pay_dossier_eu all screen sanctions and/or do VIES/IBAN checks. The descriptions help, but the boundaries between a KYB check, a payment gate, and a transaction preflight are subtle enough that agents can easily pick the wrong one.
Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case, and patterns like validate_*, prepare_*, and *_eu give some predictability. However, the verb style is inconsistent: some tools are verb-led (read_url, screen_sanctions_eu, lookup_company_eu), others are noun-led (market_data, token_status, agentllm_micro), and paid/prepare pairs do not share a consistent naming scheme.
24 tools is at the upper edge of what is reasonable, and the server mixes several unrelated concerns: EU VAT/invoice compliance, sanctions/KYB, US import readiness, AI disclosure/LLM inference, market data, URL reading, and transaction status. The core comply-to-pay workflow is well represented, but the extra domains make the tool list feel heavier and less like a single coherent service.
The EU invoice/payment compliance flow is fairly complete: e-invoice validation, VAT rules, VIES, IBAN, sanctions, transaction preflight, payment decisions, bookkeeping statements, and receipt verification are all covered. Obvious gaps remain for such a broadly named server: no export/other product compliance, no broader EU regulatory coverage, and the key invoice guard explicitly does not cover duplicate-ledger detection, internal approval, or delivery checks.
