Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CounterpartyCheck

by co.youraitools
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Is it safe to pay this address?

check_counterparty
Read-onlyIdempotent

Pre-payment counterparty check: before paying, approving or interacting with an EVM (Base, Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum One) or Solana address, get ok / caution / block. Free preview tier: verdict, confidence, address kind and flag counts. The paid x402 endpoints /v1/lite ($0.005), /v1/quick ($0.015) and /v1/full ($0.05) add the reasons and evidence (OFAC SDN, scam lists, x402 directory, verification, deployer, names, cross-chain, age, exposure). Informational safety check, not legal or financial advice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "check_counterparty"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain of the payment (default base; a base58 address implies solana)
intentNoWhat you are about to do (default pay): changes which signals matter, e.g. paying a token contract or approving an EOA
addressYesCounterparty address: EVM 0x + 40 hex, or a Solana base58 address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds genuinely useful context: a free tier returning only verdict/confidence/kind/flag counts, paid x402 endpoints at stated prices that unlock reasons and evidence sources (OFAC SDN, scam lists, deployer, age, exposure), plus a disclaimer that this is not legal/financial advice. The main omission is how an agent actually invokes the paid endpoints.

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?

Front-loaded with the verdict contract (ok / caution / block), then tiers, then disclaimer — a sensible order. It is dense and the pricing/endpoint enumeration is somewhat run-on, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value duty and does it well by naming the four preview fields and the verdict scale. For a 3-param read-only tool that is largely sufficient; the gap is that the paid endpoints are described by path and price but not by how to call them.

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%, with enums and per-parameter descriptions already covering chain defaults, address formats and how intent shifts which signals matter. The description only restates that chains are EVM/Solana and adds no format, default or edge-case detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination — a pre-payment counterparty safety check returning ok / caution / block — and names the exact decision it informs (paying, approving, interacting) across named chains. No siblings exist to confuse it with, and the tier structure (free preview vs paid endpoints) further pins down the resource.

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 frames the trigger condition: call this *before* paying, approving or interacting with an address. That is clear usage context with no alternatives to route to. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. checking your own address, or re-checking an already-verified counterparty).

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

All CounterpartyCheck 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