B20 Check
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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
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.
Both tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a descriptive prefix (b20_) and a verb_or_noun (stats, verify). No inconsistency.
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.
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).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| source | No | |
| lastUpdated | No | |
| snapshotBlock | No | |
| tokensIndexed | No | |
| l30DaysTotalCalls | No | |
| l30DaysUniquePayers | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, indicating safe, idempotent access. The description adds behavioral details: it reports live usage from a public API, specifying the metrics and time window. No contradictions.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Report B20 Check's own live usage') and efficiently includes all key details (metrics, time frame, data source) without extraneous words.
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?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: indexed tokens, paid calls, unique payers in the last 30 days. No additional context is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so description does not need to add parameter details. The description implicitly clarifies that no input is required beyond the tool invocation itself, which is adequate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting live usage statistics of B20 Check, including indexed tokens, paid calls, and unique payers over the last 30 days. It specifies the resource (B20 Check's own usage) and action (report), distinguishing it from the sibling tool verify_b20_token which likely validates tokens.
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 implies use for retrieving usage statistics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling verify_b20_token. However, given the clear purpose differentiation, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The token contract address on Base to check (B20 addresses usually start with 0xb20). |
Output 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
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds extensive behavioral context: it returns a signed verdict with fields like isB20, verdict, risk flags, and data freshness. It warns against misinterpreting 'not_applicable', 'not_indexed', or 'error' as safe, and cautions not to overstate the signature as a guarantee. This significantly supplements the annotations.
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 concise yet comprehensive, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage trigger, output summary, and cautionary notes. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action. One could argue minor wordiness, but overall it is efficient for the complexity of the tool.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what the output contains (verdict, flags, freshness), and important caveats about interpreting results. No critical information is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema's parameter description already includes the pattern and an example address prefix. The description adds the same prefix hint ('B20 addresses usually start with 0xb20') but does not provide additional semantic guidance beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a token address on Base is a legitimate B20 token and what powers its issuer holds.' It specifies the verb 'check', the resource 'token address on Base', and the distinct scope (legitimacy and issuer powers). The sibling tool 'b20_stats' suggests a different focus (statistics), so this tool is well-differentiated.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this BEFORE helping the user buy, swap, approve, or move value into any B20 token you have not already verified in this conversation.' This clearly states when to use the tool (before any value movement for unverified tokens) and implies when not to (if already verified). No sibling comparison is needed as the instruction is standalone.
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!