Skip to main content
Glama

Etherscan

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Balance

get_balance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Native-token balance for an address on a supported EVM chain. Defaults to Ethereum mainnet. Accepts chain by slug (ethereum, polygon, bsc, base, arbitrum, optimism, avalanche, fantom, gnosis, linea, scroll, zksync, blast, mantle) or numeric chain ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain slug or numeric chain ID (default ethereum)
addressYes0x address

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
weiYesBalance in wei (raw units)
symbolYesNative token symbol or null
addressYesThe queried address
balanceYesFormatted balance with decimals
chain_idYesNumeric chain ID
chain_nameYesHuman-readable chain name or null

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "address": "0x1234567890123456789012345678901234567890"
+  },
+  {
+    "address": "0xabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcd",
+    "chain": "polygon"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "description": "The queried address",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "balance": {
+      "description": "Formatted balance with decimals",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "chain_id": {
+      "description": "Numeric chain ID",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "chain_name": {
+      "description": "Human-readable chain name or null",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "symbol": {
+      "description": "Native token symbol or null",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "wei": {
+      "description": "Balance in wei (raw units)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "chain_id",
+    "chain_name",
+    "address",
+    "wei",
+    "balance",
+    "symbol"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying default chain and accepted chain identifiers, but does not delve into other behavioral traits like caching or rate limits.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details on defaults and accepted inputs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given only 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, default behavior, and accepted inputs. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by specifying default behavior for the 'chain' parameter (defaults to Ethereum mainnet) and listing accepted chain slugs, which is not fully captured in the schema description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves native-token balance for an address on EVM chains, with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('balance'), and scope ('address on a supported EVM chain'). It also distinguishes from siblings like get_token_balance which handles ERC20 tokens.

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?

The description indicates default behavior (Ethereum mainnet) and acceptable input formats (chain slug or numeric ID), implying usage for native token balances. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like get_token_balance.

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

All Etherscan toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools serve nearly identical purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) with only marginal differences, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlaps in its goal of finding betting edges. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description in detail.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun (get_balance, list_transactions), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), brand prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and adjectival forms (deep_research, compare_entities). The naming is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' even for a general-purpose data server. The situation is worsened by the fact that the server is named Etherscan but only 5 of the 36 tools relate to Ethereum/blockchain, making the count unjustified for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

For the de facto domain (Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market research, entity profiles, claim validation, subscriptions, memory), the tool surface is quite comprehensive: it covers lookup, research, comparison, grounding, and monitoring. Missing are a few edge operations (e.g., no Etherscan transaction-by-hash tool), but the broader domain is well-covered with only minor gaps.

Resources