Skip to main content
Glama

Rokha

by ai.rokha
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

orbitx_get_safety · Orbitx

orbitx__orbitx_get_safety
Read-only

Honeypot / tradeability check — can you buy and sell this mint? — Orbitx's MCP server, a live seat on The Wall (hosted by them). Called through their seat; their data comes back as it is. Read-shaped tools only (anything that buys, sells or writes refuses). Listing: https://rokha.ai/registry?skill=orbitx-official-mcp

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).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only a note about data coming back as-is and the read-shaped restriction, which largely duplicates annotations. No additional behavioral context like auth requirements or rate limits is provided.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description front-loads the purpose effectively, but includes extraneous server information and a URL that are not needed for calling the tool. The extra sentences about the seat and data handling could be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the required mint parameter and what the response contains. It does neither, leaving an agent to guess the input format and expected output, which is a significant gap.

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 documents authCode but not mint, and the description does not explain what 'mint' refers to (e.g., token address) or its format. With only 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing mint documentation, leaving the required parameter ambiguous.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool performs a honeypot/tradeability check for a given mint, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chart, get_token, and get_forensics by focusing on safety rather than price or metadata.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'can you buy and sell this mint?' clearly implies usage before trading decisions. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is evident enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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

All Rokha toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources