bitfence
Server Details
Pre-transaction token risk checks for autonomous agents. Read-only; never signs or moves funds. Paid per call in USDC via x402. Supporting Base, Solana, Ethereum, Arbitrum, BSC and HyperEVM
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: quick check is a lightweight pass/fail, analyze_token provides full risk details, and contextual_risk adds position context. No overlap in functionality.
Names use consistent underscore case and follow a verb or adjective + noun pattern (analyze_token, quick_check, contextual_risk). Minor variation between active verb and descriptive adjective, but overall predictable.
Three tools are well-scoped for a token risk assessment server, covering quick screening, full analysis, and contextual risk without redundancy or excessive specialization.
Covers the full lifecycle of token risk assessment from lightweight check to detailed contextual analysis. No obvious gaps for common use cases, though batch or historical risk might be missing.
Available Tools
3 toolsanalyze_tokenAInspect
Full risk assessment for a token. Returns risk score (0-100), risk level, confidence, recommendation (PROCEED/REQUIRE_HUMAN_APPROVAL/BLOCK), reasoning, and flags triggered. Equivalent to GET /v1/risk/{chain}/{address}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Blockchain to query: "solana", "base", "ethereum", "arbitrum", "bsc", or "hyperevm" | |
| address | Yes | Token mint address (Solana) or contract address (Base/EVM, 0x-prefixed) |
Tool Definition Quality
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 that this is a read operation returning risk metrics, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
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 concise sentences that front-load the key purpose and output, with no unnecessary 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 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately specifies inputs and outputs. No additional context is essential.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'chain' and 'address'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
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?
States 'Full risk assessment for a token' and lists returned fields, clearly conveying purpose. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools 'contextual_risk' and 'quick_check', which likely have similar purposes.
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?
Description implies usage for token risk assessment but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
contextual_riskBInspect
Position-aware contextual risk assessment. Returns the full risk assessment plus position context: estimated slippage, effective cost, max safe position, portfolio concentration, and MEV exposure. Equivalent to POST /v1/risk/contextual.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Blockchain to query: "solana", "base", "ethereum", "arbitrum", "bsc", or "hyperevm" | |
| address | Yes | Token mint address (Solana) or contract address (Base/EVM, 0x-prefixed) | |
| position_size_usd | Yes | Planned position size in USD | |
| portfolio_size_usd | Yes | Total agent portfolio value in USD |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It lists the outputs, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential rate limits, data freshness, or cost implications.
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 efficiently convey the tool's purpose, key outputs, and API equivalence with zero extraneous 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?
With no output schema, the description fills the gap by listing the specific risk metrics returned. However, it omits error conditions and does not explain the metrics in depth.
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?
All 4 parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond listing the return fields.
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 it performs a 'position-aware contextual risk assessment' and lists specific output metrics (slippage, cost, etc.), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like analyze_token or quick_check.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for quick checks vs. full analysis). The description only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quick_checkAInspect
Lightweight go/no-go check for a token. Returns only risk_score, risk_level, recommendation, and cached flag. Use this when you just need a quick pass/fail without the full signal breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Blockchain to query: "solana", "base", "ethereum", "arbitrum", "bsc", or "hyperevm" | |
| address | Yes | Token mint address (Solana) or contract address (Base/EVM, 0x-prefixed) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like caching behavior, data freshness, side effects, or authentication needs. The meaning of 'cached flag' is implied but not explained, leaving some uncertainty.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a usage directive in the second sentence. Every word contributes meaning; no fluff.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and return fields. It could be improved by clarifying the value ranges of risk_score or explaining the caching behavior, but it sufficiently orients the agent for a quick check scenario.
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?
The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with clear descriptions for both parameters (chain and address). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline without adding further value.
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 identifies the tool as a lightweight go/no-go check for a token, specifying the returned fields (risk_score, risk_level, recommendation, cached flag) and contrasting with a full signal breakdown. The verb 'check' with resource 'token' is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when you just need a quick pass/fail without the full signal breakdown.' This provides clear context for selection vs. alternatives (analyze_token, contextual_risk) even though sibling names are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!