A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceTrust scoring, scam detection, and EAS attestations for ERC-8004 + x402 agents on Base.
18
69
1
MIT
B20 Check
by com.b20check
Server Details
Verify B20 tokens on Base: issuer powers, imposter detection, signed EIP-712 verdicts.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools serve entirely different purposes: b20_stats reports server usage metrics, while verify_b20_token checks token legitimacy. No overlap or confusion possible.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a descriptive prefix (b20_) and a verb_or_noun (stats, verify). No inconsistency.
Tool Count4/5
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its specific domain (B20 token verification and server stats). It covers the essential operations without being overly thin.
Completeness4/5
The server provides the core needed operations: verify a token and get server stats. Minor gaps like listing all B20 tokens or historical data are not essential for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolsb20_statsB20 Check usageARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Report B20 Check's own live usage: how many B20 tokens are indexed and how many paid calls and unique payers it has served in the last 30 days (from the public Coinbase discovery API).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| source | No | |
| lastUpdated | No | |
| snapshotBlock | No | |
| tokensIndexed | No | |
| l30DaysTotalCalls | No | |
| l30DaysUniquePayers | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds context about live usage from a public API, the 30-day window, and specific metrics, enriching transparency beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('report...live usage') and efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.
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 parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its data source. Could be slightly more explicit about the output structure, but the provided details are sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters; schema coverage is 100% by default. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. No additional parameter information needed.
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 explicitly states the tool reports live usage of B20 Check, specifying metrics (indexed tokens, paid calls, unique payers) and time window (last 30 days) and data source (public Coinbase discovery API). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool verify_b20_token, which likely focuses on individual token verification.
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 description clearly implies the tool is for retrieving aggregate usage statistics, and the sibling tool context suggests it is not for verifying individual tokens. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_b20_tokenVerify a B20 tokenARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check whether a token address on Base is a legitimate B20 token and what powers its issuer holds. Call this BEFORE helping the user buy, swap, approve, or move value into any B20 token you have not already verified in this conversation (B20 addresses usually start with 0xb20). Returns a signed verdict: isB20, a verdict of ok/caution/danger/not_applicable, risk flags (mint, freeze, seize, pause, admin, impostor, and more), and the data freshness (indexed/live/not_indexed). not_applicable means the address is not a B20 and not a recognized canonical asset: do NOT read it as safe, there is simply nothing B20-specific to vouch for. Never treat a not_indexed or error result as safe either: a token that cannot be fully checked is never a clean pass. The result carries an EIP-712 signature the user can verify independently; do not overstate it as a guarantee of safety, report what the flags and verdict actually say.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The token contract address on Base to check (B20 addresses usually start with 0xb20). |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| flags | Yes | Risk flags. Derivation rules: https://b20check.com/methodology |
| isB20 | Yes | True only for a factory-native B20 token. |
| address | Yes | The checked token address (EIP-55). |
| network | No | |
| variant | No | |
| verdict | Yes | Roll-up verdict. not_applicable = out of scope, do NOT read as safe. |
| creation | No | |
| dataSource | Yes | Data freshness. not_indexed = powers could not be fully checked; never a clean pass. |
| attestation | No | Block-pinned EIP-712 attestation; verification recipe at https://b20check.com/v1/schema |
| issuerPowers | No | mint/burn/pause/freeze/seize/admin powers, latent-inclusive. |
| issuerActivity | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the return structure (signed verdict, flags, freshness) and discloses limitations, complementing the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) effectively.
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?
The description is well-structured and mostly concise, though the final sentence on interpretation is somewhat verbose. Every sentence adds value, but minor tightening could improve.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on when to use, behavioral nuances, and interpretation, making it fully complete for the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage), and the description adds useful context ('B20 addresses usually start with 0xb20') that aids in correct usage.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('legitimate B20 token'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'b20_stats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs when to call the tool ('BEFORE helping the user buy, swap, approve, or move value'), and provides guidance on interpreting results (e.g., 'Never treat a not_indexed or error result as safe').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceSmart contract security scanner for Base. Detect honeypots, rug pulls, hidden mints, proxy dangers, and generate audit reports.8331MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceThe safety layer that checks a DeFi transaction or token before your agent (or you) signs — on Base L2.643MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceEnables agents to assess counterparty risk, token danger, and wallet creditworthiness on Base by analyzing contract powers and controlling wallet reputation.MIT