Skip to main content
Glama

Etherscan

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Token Balance

get_token_balance
Read-onlyIdempotent

ERC-20 token balance for an address against a specific token contract.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain slug or numeric chain ID (default ethereum)
addressYesHolder address
contract_addressYesERC-20 contract address

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesInstruction to use token decimals to convert
addressYesThe queried holder address
chain_idYesNumeric chain ID
chain_nameYesHuman-readable chain name or null
raw_balanceYesRaw token balance (unadjusted for decimals)
contract_addressYesERC-20 token contract address

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / address / description
      Previous value: -"Holder address"New value: +"The queried holder address"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / chain_name / description
      Previous value: -"Human-readable chain name or null if unknown"New value: +"Human-readable chain name or null"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / note / description
      Previous value: -"Reminder to use token decimals for conversion"New value: +"Instruction to use token decimals to convert"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / raw_balance / description
      Previous value: -"Token balance in raw units (unadjusted for decimals)"New value: +"Raw token balance (unadjusted for decimals)"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "address": "0x1234567890123456789012345678901234567890",
+    "contract_address": "0xa0b86991c6218b36c1d19d4a2e9eb0ce3606eb48"
+  },
+  {
+    "address": "0xabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcd",
+    "chain": "arbitrum",
+    "contract_address": "0xdac17f958d2ee523a2206206994597c13d831ec7"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "description": "Holder address",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "chain_id": {
+      "description": "Numeric chain ID",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "chain_name": {
+      "description": "Human-readable chain name or null if unknown",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "contract_address": {
+      "description": "ERC-20 token contract address",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "description": "Reminder to use token decimals for conversion",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "raw_balance": {
+      "description": "Token balance in raw units (unadjusted for decimals)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "chain_id",
+    "chain_name",
+    "address",
+    "contract_address",
+    "raw_balance",
+    "note"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond specifying it queries an ERC-20 token balance. No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the core functionality for a simple query tool. With an output schema available, it does not need to detail return format. However, it could mention the unit of the balance (e.g., wei) for full completeness.

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?

The description adds semantic context that this tool is for ERC-20 tokens, complementing the schema descriptions that cover each parameter individually. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but the description provides a concise purpose statement tying parameters together.

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 verb (get) and resource (ERC-20 token balance) with specific parameters (address, contract). It explicitly mentions ERC-20, distinguishing it from sibling tool get_balance which likely refers to native chain balance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case for ERC-20 tokens but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_balance. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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