Skip to main content
Glama

ZEAM Prism MCP

by com.zeamprism

audit_funders

Every address that sent this wallet the asset, with amounts, transfer counts and block ranges.

One address at a time; run audit.cluster on a set. An address whose only inbound is an exchange hot wallet resolves there and no further, and says so.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineNooptional — credential from the /pay socket. With it the call is served off your line and carries no payment. Without it, put x402 payment in params._meta.
tokenNooptional string — the asset to follow, 0x form. Defaults to the chain's main stablecoin.
addressYesstring — the wallet to trace, 0x form.
to_blockNooptional int — where to stop. Defaults to the head.
from_blockNooptional int — where to start. Defaults to the token's deployment if known, else 0.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides a valuable edge-case behavior: an address whose only inbound is an exchange hot wallet resolves there and stops, with the tool saying so. It also makes the single-address limitation explicit. It does not cover permission or error behavior, but the disclosed termination logic is genuinely useful.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core output, and the second adds the usage constraint and an important edge-case behavior. Every clause earns 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description gives enough context for correct invocation: output facets, single-address scope, and a termination rule. It does not mention empty-result behavior or explicitly situate audit_payers, but the remaining gaps are minor for this tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of address and token but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it lists every address that sent a given wallet the asset, with amounts, transfer counts, and block ranges. The phrase 'Every address that sent this wallet the asset' is specific and distinguishes this from audit_payers and audit_cluster, which are sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says the tool handles one address at a time and directs the agent to use audit.cluster for a set, naming a concrete alternative. It does not contrast with audit_payers or explain when that sibling should be preferred, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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

All ZEAM Prism MCP 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The audit_* tools are carefully differentiated: cluster groups wallets, funders traces inbound transfers for one wallet, payers decodes channel openers. The notes_* tools also have clear lifecycle separation, and sample vs rpc is distinguished by free vs paid access. Minor overlap exists between sample and rpc since both expose RPC methods, but the descriptions make the boundary clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are consistent internal prefixes like audit_* and notes_*, but the overall surface mixes verb_noun (audit_cluster, audit_funders), noun_verb (notes_post, notes_read), and single bare words (rpc, sample, tick, how_to_pay). The names are readable and groupable, but they do not follow one predictable convention across the whole server.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well within the ideal scope for a server with distinct functional areas: on-chain auditing, notes, RPC access, and payment/settlement. Each tool has a clear job, and none feel redundant or superfluous.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are well covered: cluster auditing, funder/payer investigation, notes post/read/sign, RPC access, and payment instructions/settlement. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated usage or credit read tool, though tick and how_to_pay partially cover the payment lifecycle.

Resources