Check who your agent is about to pay over x402: real service, relayer, treasury, or buyer.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Several tools (agent_credit, agent_preflight, check_counterparty, crest_score, crest_verify) all evaluate counterparties or wallets, with overlapping purposes that could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions. The differentiation is present but subtle.
All tool names use snake_case and are descriptive. However, there is a mix of prefixes (agent_, crest_, pm_, and standalone) that slightly breaks a uniform pattern, though it remains predictable.
With 11 tools, the server covers a broad range of counterparty intelligence tasks (wallet checks, token risk, trader classification, passport management) without being excessive or too sparse.
The tool surface covers key areas: credit/risk assessment, identity verification, memory, token risk, and specialized classification. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of counterparty intelligence.
agent_creditAgent credit bureauACredit-check any x402 agent wallet before you rely on it or extend it service. Returns economic_class (funded/active/low/drained/unknown), live USDC balance, and a creditworthiness verdict, so you know if a counterparty will pay or is about to drain to zero. Free; full read (runway, observed burn) is a $0.05 x402 call. Read-only, not financial advice. By Crest Deployment Systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | x402 agent wallet to credit-check (0x + 40 hex) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | No | |
| address | No | |
| upgrade | No | |
| verdict | No | |
| not_advice | No | |
| creditworthy | No | |
| usdc_balance | No | |
| economic_class | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that a full read costs $0.05, that the tool is free for basic check, and includes a disclaimer ('not financial advice'). 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with the action and essential outputs, uses short sentences, and avoids fluff. Every sentence provides useful information (purpose, returns, cost, read-only nature, disclaimer).
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?
Description fully covers the tool's functionality, return values, cost structure, and read-only nature. Given the presence of an output schema (implied by described returns) and high schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for agent decision-making.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter well. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the wallet is an x402 agent wallet, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 the tool's purpose: credit-check an x402 agent wallet before relying on it. It specifies the outputs (economic_class, balance, creditworthiness verdict), making the purpose concrete and distinguishable from siblings like check_counterparty.
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 advises using the tool before relying on or extending service to an agent wallet, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the listed sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_preflightPre-action risk gate for any walletACall BEFORE your agent transfers, trades, or settles to a wallet. Returns risk_level (low/medium/high/unknown) and reason codes from Crest counterparty intelligence, so your agent skips relayers, treasuries, and dead ends. Free; the full gate (changed-since cursor + ttl for cheap per-action re-checks) is a $0.02 x402 call. Read-only, not financial advice. By Crest Deployment Systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | wallet your agent is about to interact with (0x + 40 hex) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| free | No | |
| note | No | |
| error | No | |
| address | No | |
| risk_level | No | |
| reason_codes | No | |
| classification | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context about being free for basic checks, costing $0.02 for full re-checks, and states 'Read-only, not financial advice.' No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the imperative usage instruction. Each sentence adds essential information: when to use, what it returns, and cost/caveats. No wasted 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?
With an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, return values, cost, and caveats. It lacks error handling or limitations, but is sufficient for a simple tool with good annotations.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'address' parameter. The description mentions 'wallet' but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool's purpose as a pre-action risk gate for wallets, specifying when to call (before transfers, trades, settlements) and what it returns (risk levels and reason codes). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on pre-action risk assessment.
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 instructs to call before transfers, trades, or settlements, and mentions the benefit of skipping risky addresses. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context and siblings imply this is the primary pre-flight check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_counterpartyCheck who your agent is about to pay (x402)ABefore your agent pays an address over x402, check what is on the other side. Returns a plain verdict: a real service, a buyer, a relayer in the middle, or a treasury just moving funds, plus whether it is safe to pay. Free. For the full scored profile, the paid HTTP endpoint is $0.90. By Crest Deployment Systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | the Base/EVM address your agent is about to pay (0x + 40 hex) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| read | No | |
| role | No | |
| safe | No | |
| error | No | |
| address | No | |
| verdict | No | |
| recommendation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by detailing the return types (plain verdict with specific categories and safety indication) and pricing (free vs $0.90 paid), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and when to use. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output, and pricing. No fluff or 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 (one parameter, annotations covering safety, output schema exists), the description fully captures what the agent needs: when to use, what it returns, and cost. Complete for the task.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'address', with a description in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 'check' and the resource 'what is on the other side' of an address, with a specific use case (before paying over x402). It also distinguishes this free version from the paid HTTP endpoint, providing clear 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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Before your agent pays an address over x402'. Also contrasts with the paid endpoint for full profiles. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives among sibling tools like pm_counterparty, but the context strongly implies appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
crest_passportGet or create your Crest agent passportAInspectYour persistent home in the agent economy. No args = MINT a new passport (returns agent_id + a secret passport_key shown ONCE; store it). passport_key = load your own passport (reputation, stats, memory_root). agent_id = PUBLIC view of any agent. Optional wallet binds your x402 wallet to anchor reputation. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | No | optional 0x+40hex x402 wallet to bind for reputation | |
| agent_id | No | a public agent_id, to view another agent | |
| passport_key | No | your secret key, to load your own passport |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| error | No | |
| public | No | |
| agent_id | No | |
| reputation | No | |
| memory_root | No | |
| passport_key | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that minting returns agent_id and a one-time secret passport_key ('shown ONCE; store it'), and that loading/viewing are read-like operations. It adds context beyond annotations (e.g., one-time key display, free usage, wallet binding for reputation). No contradictions with annotations.
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 relatively concise with two sentences and a list-like structure. It front-loads the core concept ('Your persistent home...'). Every sentence adds value, though the format could be slightly cleaner (e.g., proper bullets).
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 three modes, output schema presence, and annotations, the description covers key behaviors: creation, loading, public viewing, and wallet binding. It mentions reputation/stats/memory_root for load. Minor omissions (e.g., error handling for invalid keys) but 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?
The description enriches each parameter beyond the schema: wallet binds x402 wallet, agent_id views another agent, passport_key loads own passport. It also explains the 'no args' case, which is not in the schema. Coverage is 100% and the description adds significant 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 three distinct modes: mint new passport (no args), load own passport (passport_key), and view another agent (agent_id). It uses specific verbs ('MINT', 'load', 'PUBLIC view') and resource ('passport'), making the purpose immediately clear.
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 each parameter (e.g., 'passport_key = load your own passport'). It provides context for wallet binding. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like crest_recall or crest_verify, so no exclusions or alternative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
crest_recallRecall your Crest memoriesASearch your own memory by keyword (matches content + tags) or get your most recent entries. Requires your passport_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | max results (default 10) | |
| query | No | keyword to match; omit for most recent | |
| passport_key | Yes | your secret passport key |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| error | No | |
| results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds that it requires authentication (passport_key) and matches content + tags, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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-loading the main action and then the requirement. 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 the output schema exists, the description covers both usage modes, authentication, and matching scope. One minor gap: ordering of recent entries (likely chronological) is not explicitly stated, but the context is strong.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by specifying that 'query' matches content AND tags, which is not in the schema. For 'k', it reiterates max results but no extra details. Overall, good enhancement.
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 ('Search your own memory') and resource ('Crest memories'), and distinguishes between keyword search and retrieving most recent entries. It is distinct from siblings like 'crest_remember' (store) and 'crest_verify' (verify).
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?
It mentions the requirement of a passport_key but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'crest_verify' or 'agent_credit'. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
crest_rememberWrite a tamper-evident memory to your passportAInspectAppend a fact/decision/outcome/note to your Crest memory. Every entry is hash-chained (sha256), so your memory is provable and tamper-evident. Returns the entry hash (a receipt) and your new memory_root. Requires your passport_key. Do not store human personal data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | comma-separated tags for recall | |
| type | Yes | kind of memory | |
| source | No | where this came from (provenance) | |
| content | Yes | the memory payload (<= 8000 chars). Do not store human PII. | |
| passport_key | Yes | your secret passport key |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | No | |
| hash | No | |
| error | No | |
| entry_count | No | |
| memory_root | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations: it reveals the write nature (append), tamper-evident hash-chaining, returned receipt and memory_root, and a PII restriction. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, but the description enriches behavioral context.
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 concise (5 short sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without fluff. No repetition of schema details.
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 output schema exists and siblings are similar, the description covers key aspects: append action, hash-chain guarantee, return values, auth requirement, and PII warning. Could mention immutability or append-only nature explicitly, but still fairly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only reiterates that passport_key is required and warns against PII, adding little new meaning to parameters already described in the schema.
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 appends a memory entry, lists memory types (fact, decision, outcome, note), and highlights unique features like hash-chaining and tamper-evidence, distinguishing it from siblings like crest_recall (read) and crest_verify (verify).
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?
While the description specifies the action (append) and requirements (passport_key), it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like crest_recall for reading or crest_verify for verification. Guidance on when-not-to-use is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
crest_scoreCrest Score: two-axis agent creditworthinessACall this before your agent pays, fronts, or extends service to another x402 wallet, to check if it will pay or is about to go broke. Two axes: solvency (will it stay funded) and liveness (will it keep paying), combined into one Crest Score with a band and a decision (ok_to_extend / monitor_or_prepay / prepay_only). Example: crest_score(0xe4a961cf1ee5b305561e38c69ed9dbd058ff036e) -> { crest_score: 89, band: "A", decision: "ok_to_extend" }. Built on the Crest settlement graph + live on-chain balance. Free; the full report (runway, monitoring cursor, change detection) is a $0.05 x402 call. Read-only, not financial advice. By Crest Deployment Systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | x402 agent wallet to score (0x + 40 hex) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| band | No | |
| free | No | |
| note | No | |
| error | No | |
| address | No | |
| decision | No | |
| liveness | No | |
| rateable | No | |
| solvency | No | |
| confidence | No | |
| crest_score | No | |
| reason_codes | No | |
| model_version | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the two-axis composite score, mentions underlying data sources (settlement graph + on-chain balance), states it is free but a full report costs $0.05, and declares it read-only. This aligns perfectly with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and adds valuable transparency about how the tool behaves.
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 moderately concise: it front-loads the key instruction ('Call this before...'), explains the tool's logic, gives an example, and mentions limitations (free, not financial advice). Some phrases like 'By Crest Deployment Systems' are marginally extraneous but do not significantly detract from clarity. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste.
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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no enums, output schema exists), the description is fully complete. It explains the output structure (crest_score, band, decision), the tool's behavior, and the context needed to use it. There are no gaps: the agent can invoke and interpret results correctly based on this description.
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 single parameter 'address' is already described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds an example call with a real-looking hex address, reinforcing the expected format (0x + 40 hex) and specifying it is an 'x402 agent wallet'. This provides clear semantic value beyond the schema's type description.
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's purpose: checking an x402 agent's creditworthiness before payment or service extension. It specifies the two axes (solvency, liveness) and the output (crest_score, band, decision). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'agent_credit' or 'check_counterparty' by defining a unique use case and output structure.
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 says when to use it ('before your agent pays, fronts, or extends service') and provides an example. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives, but the 'when-to-use' instruction is clear and specific, making it easy for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
crest_verifyVerify another agent's Crest passport + reputationABefore you trust or pay another agent, look up its Crest passport: standing (new vs returning), days active, memory depth, and on-chain role if a wallet is bound. Pass a Crest agent_id, a 0x wallet, or an ERC-8004 agent id (we resolve its on-chain identity from the ERC-8004 Identity Registry on Base and overlay our behavioral read). Read-only, not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | No | 0x+40hex wallet to verify | |
| agent_id | No | Crest agent_id to verify | |
| erc8004_id | No | an ERC-8004 agent id (tokenId) on Base, to resolve its on-chain identity + Crest behavioral read |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | No | |
| found | No | |
| onchain | No | |
| not_advice | No | |
| reputation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds 'Read-only, not financial advice' and explains on-chain resolution via ERC-8004 Identity Registry, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with purpose. 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?
Given the output schema exists (not shown but present), description sufficiently covers key return fields (standing, days active, etc.) and input modes. No missing critical context for a read-only lookup tool.
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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters, but description adds value by clarifying mutual exclusivity ('Pass a... or...') and explaining the special behavior of erc8004_id (on-chain resolution). Could be more explicit about the one-of requirement.
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?
Clear verb ('verify') and resource ('Crest passport + reputation'), specifies what info is shown (standing, days active, etc.). However, sibling 'crest_passport' exists and is not explicitly differentiated, causing potential ambiguity.
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 context given ('Before you trust or pay another agent'), but no when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned. Sibling tools could fill similar roles, so exclusion would strengthen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
onchain_profilePublic on-chain profile for a Base addressBQuick public snapshot of any Base/EVM address: account type (EOA / contract / 7702-delegated), native balance, and transaction count. Free coverage check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Base/EVM address (0x + 40 hex) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | No | |
| address | No | |
| tx_count | No | |
| account_type | No | |
| native_balance | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minor context ('quick', 'public', 'free coverage check') but does not disclose significant additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output and scope with no wasted 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 one-parameter tool, annotations covering safety, and an existing output schema (implied), the description adequately lists the return fields. Minor caveats like rate limits are missing, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand usage.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% for the address parameter, with a clear format description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 tool provides a quick public snapshot of a Base/EVM address, listing specific fields (account type, balance, tx count, coverage check). It distinguishes from sibling tools indirectly by focusing on on-chain profile data, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 siblings or alternatives. It lacks context about ideal scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pm_counterpartyPolymarket counterparty intelligenceAClassify a Polymarket trader wallet as sharp money, dumb money, or neutral by its realized edge across resolved prediction markets, with confidence. Know who is on the other side of a prediction-market trade before your agent acts. Free; the deeper read is a $0.02 x402 HTTP call. Read-only, not betting advice. By Crest Deployment Systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Polymarket trader wallet (0x + 40 hex) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| edge | No | |
| error | No | |
| label | No | |
| address | No | |
| confidence | No | |
| classification | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description reinforces 'Read-only, not betting advice' and adds context about freemium pricing. No contradictions; it adds modest value beyond annotations.
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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: functionality, use case, pricing, and disclaimer. No wasted 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists, annotations rich), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral traits. The output schema handles return details, so no additional explanation needed.
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 covers 100% of parameters, including a description for 'address' specifying format. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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?
The description clearly states the tool classifies a Polymarket trader wallet as sharp, dumb, or neutral money with confidence. It uses a specific verb (classify) and resource (trader wallet), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_counterparty by focusing on classification and realized edge.
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 advises using the tool before acting on a prediction-market trade ('Know who is on the other side... before your agent acts'). It also mentions a paid alternative (deeper read), providing context for when to use the free version. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like check_counterparty.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
token_riskToken risk scan (the code and the people)ACall this before your agent buys, swaps, or LPs into a Base token, to check if it is a rug, honeypot, or scam. Scans the contract for dangerous powers (mint new supply, blacklist wallets, pause transfers, upgrade the code) AND checks who controls those powers, scored on the Crest settlement graph: ownership renounced, an established issuer, a multisig, or an anonymous drained wallet. The same powers are safe under a trusted controller and a rug under an anonymous one. Example: token_risk(0x4ed4e862860bed51a9570b96d89af5e1b0efefed) -> { risk_level: "low", attack_surface: 20, controller_trust: 0.65 }. Free; the full report is a $0.05 x402 call. Read-only, not financial advice. By Crest Deployment Systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Base ERC-20 token contract address (0x + 40 hex) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| free | No | |
| note | No | |
| error | No | |
| token | No | |
| address | No | |
| decision | No | |
| confidence | No | |
| risk_level | No | |
| risk_score | No | |
| reason_codes | No | |
| contract_risk | No | |
| model_version | No | |
| attack_surface | No | |
| controller_trust | No | |
| control_reputation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains what the scan checks (mint, blacklist, pause, upgrade powers) and how controller trust is evaluated (renounced, issuer, multisig, anonymous). It also notes that the full report costs $0.05 and that this is read-only, reinforcing the annotation. No contradiction.
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 front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, then adds technical details and an example. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value (e.g., cost, methodology, disclaimer). Could be shortened slightly, but remains effective and well-structured.
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 complexity (scans for multiple risks and rates controller trust), the description covers all essential aspects: what it checks, how controllers are scored, example output, and cost/payment model. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.
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 single parameter 'address' already has 100% schema description coverage: 'Base ERC-20 token contract address (0x + 40 hex)'. The description adds context about what kind of token and an example, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: to scan a Base token for rug, honeypot, or scam risks before buying, swapping, or LPing. It specifies the resource (Base token) and the exact risks checked (dangerous contract powers and controller trust). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_credit or check_counterparty, which focus on identity and credit.
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 tells agents when to use this tool: 'Call this before your agent buys, swaps, or LPs into a Base token.' It provides clear context and an example call. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, though the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no exclusion is needed.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!