Skip to main content
Glama

Quick Check

quick_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fast pre-payment sanity check for agents on Base: confirms the RPC reports Base mainnet (chain ID 8453) and that the official USDC contract has deployed code. No request body. Returns PASS or FAIL with both checks and a timestamp. It is not a token-risk report, transaction simulation or payment proof. Paid tool: 0.001 USDC per call on Base via x402 (exact scheme). An unpaid call returns the payment requirement and charges nothing.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "quick_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the paid model (0.001 USDC via x402 exact scheme), the cost of failure (unpaid call returns the payment requirement and charges nothing), that no request body is needed, and the response shape. These are operational facts the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the check, then the output, then the negative scope, then the payment mechanics — each sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies the return value (PASS or FAIL plus both checks and a timestamp), and it covers scope limits and payment terms. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is fully self-describing. The description confirms "No request body," which is a small but useful reinforcement rather than added semantic depth.

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 concrete verb and resource: it confirms the RPC reports Base mainnet (chain ID 8453) and that the official USDC contract has deployed code. It also names what it is not (token-risk report, tx simulation, payment proof), which separates it from siblings like token_risk and verify_payment.

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?

"Fast pre-payment sanity check" gives the triggering context explicitly, and the exclusion sentence routes agents away from this tool when they actually need risk analysis, simulation, or payment verification. The unpaid-call behavior tells the agent what happens if payment is not attached.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources