token_metadataERC-20 metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | ||
| contract | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logo | No | Token logo URL | |
| name | No | Token name | |
| symbol | No | Token symbol | |
| decimals | No | Token decimal places |
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?
Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, which already convey safety. The description adds the ERC-20 scope, clarifying that the tool only applies to ERC-20 tokens, a behavioral constraint not present in annotations. However, no additional behavioral details like return format or limitations are disclosed.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single fragment does not earn its place; it sacrifices clarity and provides minimal information, similar to the 'Process' example.
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?
Despite having an output schema and rich annotations, the description fails to state the operation or when to use the tool. With siblings like token_balances and token_allowance, the tool could be easily confused. The description is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly without further inference.
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%, and the description provides zero parameter-level information. The parameter names 'contract' and 'chain' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent is left guessing expected formats (e.g., whether chain is a chain name or ID, what contract address format is required).
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 is a fragment 'ERC-20 metadata.' with no verb or action. It restates the title with a token standard, but does not clearly state whether it retrieves, creates, or updates metadata. While it hints at a distinction from NFT metadata, it lacks a specific operation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
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.
The 40 tools span Ethereum RPC, Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions, creating several overlapping clusters (ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage vs bet_research). Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could still misselect among the deeply related prediction-market tools or the ask_pipeworx family.
Snake_case is consistent, but the convention mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, generate_llms_txt) with noun-first names (token_balances, nft_owners, recent_alerts) and RPC-derived names (eth_call, asset_transfers). It is readable but lacks a uniform verb_noun pattern.
40 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a coherent surface, and the server is named 'Alchemy Eth' while the majority of tools belong to Pipeworx and Polymarket. The count is far too heavy for the apparent Ethereum-focused scope, and would benefit from being split into separate servers.
The Ethereum subset is read-heavy (transfers, tokens, NFTs) but the generic eth_call passthrough covers arbitrary RPC methods, partially filling gaps. The Pipeworx side is fairly complete with query, research, grounding, subscriptions, and memory. Overall, the mixed domain makes the full surface feel incomplete with no unified lifecycle.