counterparty-intelligence
Server Details
Check who your agent is about to pay over x402: real service, relayer, treasury, or buyer.
- 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 targets a distinct use case: check_counterparty for x402 payment counterparties, onchain_profile for general EVM address snapshots, and pm_counterparty for Polymarket trader classification. No overlap in purpose.
All names are lowercase with underscores, but the pattern varies: check_counterparty uses a verb_noun structure, while onchain_profile and pm_counterparty are noun phrases. Minor inconsistency in verb usage.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a domain that could encompass many types of counterparty checks. While the scope is narrow, the count is on the low end of acceptable.
The tool set covers basic profile and two specific checks (x402 and Polymarket), but lacks general risk assessment, sanctions screening, or multi-chain support. Notable gaps exist for a counterparty intelligence service.
Available Tools
3 toolscheck_counterpartyCheck who your agent is about to pay (x402)AInspect
Before 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) |
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 that the tool is free, returns a verdict and safety flag, and mentions the developer (Crest Deployment Systems). It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 very concise: two sentences with no excess. It front-loads the key instruction and follows with return details and cost information. Every sentence is necessary 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, return type, and cost. It lacks error handling details, but the tool's simplicity makes the description sufficiently 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% with only one parameter ('address'), fully described in the schema. The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond the schema context. 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's purpose: checking a counterparty before paying via x402. It specifies the return (a plain verdict and safety indication) and distinguishes from an alternative (paid HTTP endpoint), effectively differentiating from the sibling tool 'onchain_profile'.
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 the tool ('Before your agent pays an address over x402') and mentions a paid alternative for a full profile, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to the sibling tool 'onchain_profile'.
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 addressAInspect
Quick 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) |
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 that the tool is a 'quick public snapshot' and 'free coverage check', implying read-only with no cost, but does not mention rate limits, dependencies, or edge cases like invalid addresses.
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 front-load key information (returns, free coverage). No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main outputs and a note about coverage. It lacks explicit mention of network (Base mainnet vs testnet) but is otherwise 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents the format. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what's 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 action ('snapshot'), the target resource ('any Base/EVM address'), and the data returned (account type, balance, transaction count). It differentiates from the sibling tool 'check_counterparty' by focusing on public profile 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_counterparty'. It lacks explicit context about appropriate use cases 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 intelligenceAInspect
Classify 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) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It states 'Read-only' and 'not betting advice', indicating no side effects. It mentions confidence but does not detail the underlying process or limitations (e.g., dependence on resolved markets). Adequate but not detailed.
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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional line about cost and read-only nature adds value without clutter, though could be slightly tighter.
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?
The description explains what the tool does and its input but omits details about the output format (e.g., how confidence is represented). For a simple tool with no output schema, it is reasonably complete but could mention the return structure.
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 parameter description. The tool description does not add new information beyond the schema, which is expected given high coverage. Baseline score 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 function: classifying a Polymarket trader wallet as sharp, dumb, or neutral based on realized edge. It specifies the resource (trader wallet), the action (classify), and the output categories, making it unambiguous. Despite sibling tools, the purpose is distinct and well-articulated.
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 some context (free, read-only, not betting advice) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like check_counterparty or onchain_profile. It mentions a deeper paid read but not clear when to use this vs alternatives.
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!