Skip to main content
Glama

orbitx_get_forensics · Orbitx

orbitx__orbitx_get_forensics
Read-only

Forensics: dev wallet, first buyer, bundles, concentration, LP lock, safety flags.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYes
authCodeNoOrbitX authCode from the dashboard paste message or orbitx_auth_link. After auth, pass this on every tool call (required for Grok). Auth contract: signing tools (backend-signed trades, launches, burns, NFT mints) accept EITHER a valid authCode OR an authenticated session (OAuth/API-key bearer from a linked chat). The 5-minute auto-fill sweep and other server-side jobs run under their own internal credential — they never take an authCode. An authCode is sufficient but not the only accepted credential; a missing/invalid credential is rejected, never silently trusted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / authCode / description
      Previous value: -"OrbitX authCode from the dashboard paste message or orbitx_auth_link. After auth, pass this on every tool call (required for Grok)."New value: +"OrbitX authCode from the dashboard paste message or orbitx_auth_link. After auth, pass this on every tool call (required for Grok). Auth contract: signing tools (backend-signed trades, launches, burns, NFT mints) accept EITHER a valid authCode OR an authenticated session (OAuth/API-key bearer from a linked chat). The 5-minute auto-fill sweep and other server-side jobs run under their own internal credential — they never take an authCode. An authCode is sufficient but not the only accepted credential; a missing/invalid credential is rejected, never silently trusted."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
      +  "authCode": {
      +    "description": "OrbitX authCode from the dashboard paste message or orbitx_auth_link. After auth, pass this on every tool call (required for Grok).",
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "mint": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  }
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "mint"
      +]
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context about the kinds of forensic data returned, but says nothing about response shape, rate limits, or auth behavior beyond what the authCode schema description already covers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded line with no filler; the "Forensics:" label immediately orients the agent, and every listed item adds meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only getter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable list of returned categories but omits usage context and any detail about the required mint parameter. It is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps around how and when to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no description for the required 'mint' parameter, and the description does not compensate by explaining that mint is the token address or how it relates to the forensic categories. The authCode parameter is well-documented in the schema, but the central required parameter is left to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the marker "Forensics:" and enumerates concrete data categories (dev wallet, first buyer, bundles, concentration, LP lock, safety flags), making the tool's focus clear despite lacking an explicit verb. It partially differentiates this from generic sibling getters like get_token or get_safety, though the overlap on 'safety flags' keeps it from fully standing apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to choose forensics over similar tools, such as get_safety or get_token, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the resource name and terse category list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.