Search bounded Base mainnet ERC-20 transfers by address, direction, asset, counterparty, and time window; return structured transfer records. $0.02/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| direction | Yes | ||
| counterparty | No | ||
| to_timestamp | No | ||
| from_timestamp | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the search is bounded, that it returns structured transfer records, and that each call costs $0.02 via x402. However, it does not explain behavior such as default limits, ordering, pagination, or what 'bounded' precisely means, so transparency is only partial.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the pricing detail. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably informative but not complete. It does not explain the required direction and address parameters, limit defaults, timestamp constraints, or the relationship to the sibling base_transfer_search. Still, enough high-level context is present for the tool to be used plausibly.
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 names five filter dimensions: address, direction, asset, counterparty, and time window. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not clarify the semantics of each parameter in detail, such as direction relative to the address or the meaning of the limit parameter.
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 gives a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('Base mainnet ERC-20 transfers'), and the filter dimensions used. It is clear and understandable on its own. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling base_transfer_search, so it misses the explicit sibling distinction needed for a 5.
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 the tool is for searching ERC-20 transfers, but it provides no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Most importantly, there is a closely named sibling 'base_transfer_search' with no stated distinction, leaving the agent without routing guidance.
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.