treasury_preflightCheck Base ETH and USDC funding, gas, chain intent, destination type, and common payment hazards before signing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| expectedChainId | No | ||
| minGasReserveEth | No | ||
| plannedSpendUsdc | No | ||
| destinationAddress | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scope of checks (funding, gas, chain intent, destination type, hazards) but does not disclose that the preflight costs $0.02 USDC, nor what it returns. Since read-only safety is already annotated, a middle score is appropriate.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that enumerates all major check categories without filler. It is concise and earns every word.
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?
With no output schema and five parameters, the description should explain what the agent gets back and how inputs relate to the checks. It only describes the scope of the check, leaving parameter behavior and return semantics underspecified for a preflight tool.
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 0%, and the description does not explicitly map its check categories to parameters like expectedChainId, minGasReserveEth, plannedSpendUsdc, or destinationAddress. The concepts of 'gas' and 'chain intent' hint at some parameters, but planned spend is not even mentioned. For five undocumented parameters, this is weak compensation.
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 uses a specific action ('Check') and names concrete resources: Base ETH/USDC funding, gas, chain intent, destination type, and payment hazards. The 'before signing' phrase clearly frames this as a preflight check, distinct from balance-only tools like base_balance. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling payment_guard, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives clear timing and context: use this before signing a Base payment, to verify funding, gas, chain intent, destination, and hazards. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives such as payment_guard, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer when it applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool pairs have heavily overlapping purposes: check_url vs verify_web_evidence vs batch_check_urls all verify public URLs, while merchant_snapshot vs merchant_audit and payment_guard vs treasury_preflight cover very similar ground. The descriptions clarify some differences, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool when names alone are ambiguous.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but there is no consistent structural pattern. Some start with verbs (check_url, verify_web_evidence), while others are noun compounds (merchant_audit, payment_guard), and batch_check_urls places the verb in the middle. The naming is understandable but not predictable across the set.
At 8 tools, the count is reasonable and within the ideal range for a focused utility server. However, a few tools are near-duplicates of others, so the set feels slightly less well-scoped than the count alone suggests.
For the apparent niche of web3 payment preflight, merchant evaluation, and URL verification, the surface covers the core workflows well. The main gap is the lack of a more granular transaction-history or payment-execution tool, but agents can likely complete their intended tasks without dead ends.