Provides on-chain data for Ethereum, including wallet portfolio (native and ERC-20 balances with USD value), token info, gas prices, and token prices.
Provides on-chain data for Optimism, including wallet portfolio (native and ERC-20 balances with USD value), token info, gas prices, and token prices.
Provides on-chain data for Polygon, including wallet portfolio (native and ERC-20 balances with USD value), token info, gas prices, and token prices.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@chain-data Show me the portfolio for 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Live multi-chain on-chain data, aggregated in ONE call — built for AI agents.
Give it a wallet and get its whole portfolio across Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum and Optimism — native balances + top ERC-20 holdings, each priced in USD — in a single response. Plus token/contract facts, live gas and prices. All read straight from public RPCs and DefiLlama; no API key, no node.
Available as an MCP server (free) and a pay-per-call x402 API ($0.10 USDC on Base, no sign-up).
An agent that wants a wallet's multi-chain net worth would otherwise have to:
fan out N JSON-RPC calls to N chains → ABI-encode balanceOf/decimals/symbol → batch them → join against a price feed → repeat per chain. chain-data does all of that server-side and returns one fresh JSON object per call. That convenience on live data is the point — agents pay for the aggregation, not for a static answer they could cache.
Related MCP server: Datai MCP Server
Tool | What it does |
| Native + ERC-20 balances with live USD value, across 5 chains, in one call |
| symbol, name, decimals, total supply, is-contract, EIP-1967 proxy + implementation, price |
| base fee / gas price / priority fee / latest block, per chain or all at once |
| live USD price by |
{
"mcpServers": {
"chain-data": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "chain-data-mcp"] }
}
}Or over HTTP: POST https://chain-data.vercel.app/mcp.
GET /portfolio?wallet=0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045
GET /token?chain=base&address=0x833589fcd6edb6e08f4c7c32d4f71b54bda02913
GET /gas
GET /price?chain=ethereum&address=0xc02aaa39b223fe8d0a0e5c4f27ead9083c756cc2Rate-limited to 30 requests/hour/IP.
The /pro/* routes are gated by x402. Your agent pays $0.10 USDC per call automatically — no sign-up, no API key. Settles on-chain (Base) to the operator wallet. No rate limit.
GET /pro/portfolio?wallet=0x...
GET /pro/token?chain=base&address=0x...
GET /pro/gas
GET /pro/price?chain=ethereum&address=0x...Ethereum · Base · Polygon · Arbitrum One · OP Mainnet — all via public, key-free RPCs with automatic failover.
Balances / token info / gas: public JSON-RPC endpoints (mainnet.base.org, eth.llamarpc.com, polygon-rpc.com, …).
Prices: DefiLlama coins API (free) / CoinGecko ids.
No credentials are stored or required. The server holds no private key — payTo is a public receiving address only.
npm install
npm run build
npm run test:engine # live smoke test against real RPCs
npm run dev:http # local HTTP server on :8080 (payments off unless X402_* set)
npm run dev:mcp # local stdio MCP serverMIT
Get LIVE gas prices (base fee, gas price, priority fee, latest block) for one chain or all supported chains at once. Use to decide where/when a transaction is cheapest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Optional single chain. Omit to get gas for all five chains. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses real-time nature ('LIVE'), return contents, and the ability to query one or all chains. Does not mention rate limits or exact chain list, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.
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?
Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value. Excellent conciseness.
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?
Tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema). Description covers purpose, inputs, and output components. Could specify the five supported chains explicitly, but overall complete enough for effective use.
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 100% (single parameter 'chain' fully described). Description adds no meaningful extra semantics beyond restating the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'LIVE gas prices', and lists components (base fee, gas price, priority fee, latest block). It distinctly differs from sibling tools (token_info, token_price, wallet_portfolio) which address different data.
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?
Explicit usage guidance provided: 'Use to decide where/when a transaction is cheapest.' While it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient given sibling tools are unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get on-chain facts about a token/contract: symbol, name, decimals, total supply, whether it is a deployed contract, whether it is an EIP-1967 proxy (and its implementation address), and live USD price. Reads directly from the chain. Use to vet or describe a token contract before interacting with it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain: ethereum, base, polygon, arbitrum or optimism. | |
| address | Yes | The token/contract address (0x...). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Reads directly from the chain,' implying a safe read operation. It does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior (e.g., invalid address). The listed return values provide some transparency, but more detail on potential issues would be helpful.
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 two sentences: the first lists all returned facts, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is returned and when to use it. No additional context is necessary.
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 100%; both parameters (chain, address) have descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'on-chain facts about a token/contract', listing specific data fields (symbol, name, decimals, total supply, proxy status, price). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_price (likely only price) and gas_prices.
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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to vet or describe a token contract before interacting with it.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the live USD price of a token by {chain,address} (most precise) or by coingeckoId or symbol. Free key-less price feed (DefiLlama/CoinGecko).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Chain for an on-chain token address lookup. | |
| address | No | Token contract address (use with chain). | |
| coingeckoId | No | CoinGecko id, e.g. 'ethereum'. | |
| symbol | No | Token symbol, e.g. 'ETH' (best-effort). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (DefiLlama/CoinGecko) and price type (live USD), but lacks details on behavior when no parameters are given, conflicts, or output format. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and parameter options, followed by useful context. No filler words.
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?
Given the simple tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it omits behavior for missing or conflicting parameters, which may be needed for fully complete guidance.
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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by noting the precision order of parameter combinations, which helps the agent choose the best input method.
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 clearly states the tool gets the live USD price of a token, lists specific identification methods (chain/address, coingeckoId, symbol), and distinguishes the most precise method. This differentiates it from siblings like gas_prices and token_info.
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 provides guidance on parameter preference (chain+address most precise, symbol as best-effort) and mentions the feed is free and key-less. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a wallet's LIVE multi-chain portfolio in ONE call: native coin balances (ETH/POL) AND top ERC-20 token holdings, each priced in USD, across Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum and Optimism. Reads balances straight from public RPCs and joins live prices. Use this whenever you need the current on-chain holdings / net worth of an EVM address without making dozens of RPC calls yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | The EVM wallet address (0x...). | |
| chains | No | Optional subset of chains: ethereum, base, polygon, arbitrum, optimism. Defaults to all five. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it reads from public RPCs and joins live prices, indicating read-only behavior. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it's clear but does not mention any limits or authorization requirements.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key benefit, no fluff. Highly efficient.
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?
Explains output (native balances and top ERC-20s priced in USD) sufficiently for a portfolio tool. Vague on 'top' limit but no output schema exists; overall complete.
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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description does not add new parameter details beyond what schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clearly states the tool aggregates live multi-chain portfolio data including native coins and top ERC-20s, priced in USD, across five chains. Distinguishes from sibling tools focused on individual token or gas data.
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?
Explicitly recommends use when needing current on-chain holdings/net worth without many RPC calls. Does not exclude cases but implies when to use over siblings like token_price.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.1gas_pricestoken_infotoken_pricewallet_portfolioEach tool targets a distinct facet of chain data: gas prices, token metadata, token pricing, and wallet portfolio. Overlap between token_info and token_price is minimal since token_info provides comprehensive on-chain facts while token_price is a focused price lookup.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern using noun phrases (gas_prices, token_info, token_price, wallet_portfolio). No mixing of styles or inconsistent verbs.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing on-chain data. Each tool serves a clear need without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
The tools cover gas, token details, price, and portfolio. Missing features like block info or transaction history are acceptable given the focused scope, but a chain-data server could optionally include additional data points.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Read-only on-chain intelligence for AI agents on Base: balances, tokens, gas, tx status.
Read-only on-chain intelligence for AI agents on Base: balances, tokens, gas, tx status.
Provide AI agents and automation tools with contextual access to blockchain data including balance…
Live crypto prices, conversion, gas tracker, portfolio tools, and calculators for AI agents.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Baneado98/chain-data'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server