Arkham-compatible bounded Base ERC-20 transfer results for one wallet, with chain, token, flow, pagination and normalized transfer fields. $0.005/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | Yes | ||
| flow | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| chains | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| tokens | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / addressRemoved value: -{
- "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / assetRemoved value: -{
- "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / baseAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / chainsAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "base"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / counterpartyRemoved value: -{
- "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / directionRemoved value: -{
- "enum": [
- "in",
- "out",
- "both"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / flowAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "in",
+ "out",
+ "all"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / from_timestampRemoved value: -{
- "format": "date-time",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 9950,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / to_timestampRemoved value: -{
- "format": "date-time",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / tokensAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "address",
- "direction"
-]New value: +[
+ "base"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose useful traits: bounded results, Arkham-compatible normalization, and a $0.005/call x402 cost. However, it does not explain prerequisites such as x402 payment setup, response contents, failure behavior, or pagination limits.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core scope and includes the cost detail at the end. This is an appropriately sized description for the amount of information provided.
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 six-parameter paid tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too terse. It omits payment/auth prerequisites, pagination behavior, output shape, and the relationship to the direct sibling base_transfer_search_rpc. An agent cannot fully determine correct invocation from this description alone.
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 needs to compensate for the six parameters. It only lists 'chain, token, flow, pagination' without definitions, and it does not explain that `chains` is restricted to `base`, that `flow` accepts in/out/all, or how `limit` and `offset` work. The schema enums help, but the description does not add enough parameter-level meaning.
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 states that the tool returns Arkham-compatible bounded Base ERC-20 transfer results for one wallet, clearly indicating a search/list operation despite lacking an explicit verb. It names chain, token, flow, pagination, and normalized fields, which helps differentiate it from generic transfer tools. It does not explicitly name its sibling base_transfer_search_rpc, but the Arkham-compatibility and normalization phrasing provide partial differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling base_transfer_search_rpc or other wallet/transfer tools. It mentions cost and boundedness but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer the appropriate usage context.
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.
Several tool groups are nearly indistinguishable: wallet_analyze, wallet_spy, and base_wallet_profile all inspect wallets; batch_extract, batch_url_json, and x401_batch_extract all batch-extract URLs; route_task, agentcore_route, and mpp_route all perform routing. An agent would need to read very carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
All names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or namespace pattern: many are noun-only (inference, echo, sentiment, server_time), some are prefixed by domain (bazaar_, base_, x402_, rep_), and action prefixes vary widely (fetch_, compile_, extract_, purchase_, route_). The naming is readable but not predictable across the set.
Seventy tools is an extremely large surface for an agent to choose from, and most appear to be independent paid service wrappers. This exceeds the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold in the calibration and creates an overwhelming selection problem.
Relative to its apparent purpose—exposing x402 payments and Bazaar market data—the coverage is extensive: diagnostics, preflight, settlement verification, receipt lookup, wallet checks, Bazaar analytics, web extraction, and text processing are all represented. The main gaps are operational side-effects like creating or updating a Bazaar listing, but those appear to be outside this read/purchase surface.