Skip to main content
Glama

fingers

by co.fingersai

tx_check

SIMULATE a transaction BEFORE signing it: what does it ACTUALLY do to your funds? Shows every asset that would LEAVE or ENTER the wallet, every token APPROVAL it grants (and to whom, flagging unlimited allowances and flagged spenders), and whether it reverts. THE check at the moment of signing -- catches drains, gifted-NFT approval traps, and unlimited-allowance scams. On chains without a full simulator (e.g. Robinhood Chain) it falls back to DECODING the calldata, still catching unlimited approvals / setApprovalForAll. Read-only (simulates, never executes). Give the tx: to, data (calldata), value (hex wei), from_address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesthe tx recipient/contract address
dataNocalldata hex (0x for a plain ETH send)
chainNochain: ethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon (default ethereum)
valueNowei to send, hex (e.g. 0x0)
from_addressNothe signer's wallet address (recommended, for accurate in/out)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only (simulates, never executes), details what it reports (assets leaving/entering, approvals with flags, revert status), and describes fallback to decoding. Discloses limitations (chains without full simulator). Missing potential info like rate limits or error handling, but overall very transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is front-loaded with the core purpose. Sentences are functional and informative. Could be slightly more concise (e.g., repeats 'SIMULATE' and 'THE check'), but the structure is clear and each sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (assets, approvals, revert). It also covers fallback behavior. Lacks detail on error conditions or output format, but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected results.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for parameters (e.g., 'hex wei' for value, 'recommended' for from_address), but mostly restates the schema. Provides no additional meaning for the 'chain' parameter. Adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'simulate a transaction BEFORE signing it' and the resource (a transaction). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing that it reveals actual asset movements, approvals, and reversions, which no other sibling tool does. The purpose is specific and unique.

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?

Explicitly says to use before signing to catch drains, approval traps, and scams. Mentions fallback behavior on chains without full simulator. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but provides clear context for appropriate use.

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

All fingers toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools share the same core purpose (safety checks) differentiated mainly by chain or asset type, and descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish them most of the time. However, pairs like rug_check/rugcheck and deployer_check/deployer_reputation have overlapping purposes that could lead to misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a lowercase snake_case pattern with clear descriptors, but there are notable exceptions like 'rugcheck', 'defillama', and 'verify'. Additionally, the 'rug_check' vs 'rugcheck' pair is an obvious naming inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is excessive for any server. Even for a broad security/due-diligence purpose, many tools (especially the robinhood_* series) are highly specialized and could be consolidated into fewer actions.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is impressively comprehensive, covering token/NFT safety, transaction simulation, whale/address tracking, stock analysis, prediction markets, and project validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no ENS resolution or stock price history), but they are not critical for the server's core purpose.

Resources