Skip to main content
Glama

address_age

Read-onlyIdempotent

Age in days of any address, from its first transaction. Time is the one signal that cannot be faked.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "address_age"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain slug (optional, defaults to base)
addressYesWallet address (0x...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds a useful behavioral definition by explaining that age is measured from the first transaction, but it does not cover failure cases, chain behavior, or limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is short and front-loads the core meaning, but the second sentence ('Time is the one signal that cannot be faked') is promotional and does not add actionable information. Every sentence should earn its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines what the returned age means and its measurement origin. It omits edge cases such as addresses with no transactions, but that is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the address and optional chain parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'any address' and defaults to the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific computation: the age in days of an address, measured from its first transaction. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as trust_check or reviewer_wallet.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent can infer that this is for address age, but there is no routing information.

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