Skip to main content
Glama

Eagle Virtual — Stablecoin Freeze & Seize Tracker

by com.eaglevirtual

Largest recorded stablecoin seizures, freezes and blacklistings

get_biggest
Read-onlyIdempotent

The largest recorded stablecoin blacklistings, freezes, seizures and releases, ranked by amount, largest first. Answers "what is the largest blacklist", "the biggest freeze", and "the biggest seizure". Filter by coin, blockchain or kind. A blacklisting or freeze is ranked by the balance the wallet held when it was restricted; a seizure by the balance that was taken — two different quantities, and each row says which it is. Covers the last six months with the wallet, date, block and transaction for each; set scope to "all_time" for the largest on record since 2018, which names no wallet, transaction or block.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoRestrict to one kind of action. "blacklist" is a deny-list entry in the token contract; "freeze" locks an account; "seizure" took the balance. Omit for all.
chainNoBlockchain name or chain id, e.g. Tron or 1.
limitNoRows to return, up to 50. Defaults to 10.
scopeNoDefaults to "recent" — the last six months, with the wallet, block and transaction on every row. "all_time" ranks the whole record back to 2018 and names no wallet, transaction or block for any of it.
tokenNoCoin symbol, e.g. USDT. Omit for every coin.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: blacklists/freezes are ranked by balance held at restriction, seizures by balance taken, and the all_time scope omits wallet/transaction/block data. This goes well beyond the annotations and schema.

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?

The description is compact but information-dense, with the core ranked-list purpose front-loaded and key distinctions explained efficiently. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance; there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a read-only ranking tool with no output schema, the description covers the key result fields, the two ranking metrics, scope behavior, filtering options, and defaults. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic nuance about how the ranking quantity differs by kind, which clarifies the meaning of results beyond the schema. It does not fully enumerate the 'sanctions' kind, but the schema covers that.

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 states a precise purpose: retrieving the largest recorded stablecoin blacklistings, freezes, seizures, and releases, ranked by amount. It names concrete question types it answers and explicitly differentiates it from general event-listing tools by emphasizing the ranking and 'largest' focus.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and how to narrow results via coin, blockchain, or kind. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the scope defaults and 'all_time' option are well explained, making usage conditions clear.

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

All Eagle Virtual — Stablecoin Freeze & Seize Tracker 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct query type: per-address history, largest events, coverage metadata, per-coin policy, aggregate statistics, and the public event feed. Where list_freeze_events and get_address_status both return event rows, the descriptions explicitly point agents to the right tool for each use case.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly consistent with get_* snake_case verbs, and all names are readable and predictable. Minor deviations are list_freeze_events using 'list' instead of 'get' and get_biggest being more of a query label than a resource noun.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a focused read-only tracker. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core domain is well covered: address lookups, token policies, aggregate statistics, coverage checks, ranked events, and a public event feed are all present. Minor gaps include no direct lookup by transaction/block/event ID and no way to page through the full historical event feed, but those limitations are clearly disclosed and do not break common workflows.

Resources