Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SpendPreflight

by com.spendpreflight.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Base token / contract safety signals

check_token
Read-only

Base contract safety signals from bounded public-chain reads and OFAC. Basic: deployed bytecode and SDN match. Deep adds standard owner(), paused(), totalSupply(), decimals() and ERC-1967 storage observations, exact ERC-1167 minimal-proxy target detection, a Sourcify runtime-verification claim matched to current bytecode, and direct-deployment age when independently supported by the creation receipt. Honeypot/sellability, liquidity locks, holder concentration and scam lists are NOT assessed. Missing data is unknown; never a safe-to-buy verdict. Informational, not financial advice. Basic $0.02; deep $0.05. Shared trial first. Price: 0.02 basic; 0.05 deep USDC. Minimal input example: {"address":"0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913","chain":"eip155:8453","tier":"basic"}. Illustrative output excerpt: {"verdict":"unknown","assessment_complete":false,"unassessed":["honeypot_and_sellability","mint_and_blacklist_privileges","liquidity_lock_or_removability","holder_concentration","non_OFAC_scam_lists","complete_owner_privilege_and_proxy_analysis"]}. Illustrative output excerpt, not a live result, signature, approval or guarantee. Freshness/data/availability checks still apply. How to pay (MCP): First use the existing shared allowance of 3 eligible calls per IP per UTC day, without payment metadata. This is shared with eligible HTTP trials, not a new allowance. Use an x402-capable MCP client. A generic MCP connector without payment support cannot complete a paid continuation. On payment required, STOP. Inspect the exact accepts amount, asset, network and payTo; obtain explicit wallet/budget approval before continuing. Only after approval, let the configured x402 MCP client attach its signed payload in _meta["x402/payment"] and retry the same tools/call arguments. Never send a separate USDC transfer or paste keys into tool arguments. Never silently fall back from free access to payment. If a signed attempt has an unknown outcome, inspect that authorization/transaction; do not create another automatically.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNobasic
chainNo
addressYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: bounded public-chain reads, OFAC screening, unknown data handling, absence of a safe-to-buy verdict, trial limits, and payment requirements. It also discloses unassessed risk categories and the informational-only nature.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the information is mostly relevant, but the text is very long and repeats pricing and trial details. Payment mechanics and disclaimers dominate, reducing conciseness even though the structure remains readable.

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 tool's complexity, paid access flow, tiered behavior, and lack of output schema, the description is highly complete. It includes an illustrative output excerpt, unassessed categories, pricing, trial limits, and payment handling details.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the basic/deep tier distinction and provides an example input, but it does not fully define the address and chain parameters beyond the example and schema constraints.

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?

States a specific resource and operation: Base contract safety signals from public-chain reads and OFAC. It clearly differentiates basic versus deep tiers, but does not name or distinguish itself from sibling tools such as security_check or check_payee.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Explains what basic and deep cover and explicitly lists what is NOT assessed, which helps set expectations. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like security_check, check_payee, or check_listing.

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

All SpendPreflight toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources