Evaluates any GitHub repository for license risk, maintenance velocity, stars/forks, and supply-c.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools target entirely different concerns: one performs a GitHub repository security/license audit, the other inspects an agent's billing/quota ledger. There is no overlap in purpose or parameters, so an agent can trivially select the right one.
Both names use snake_case with a leading verb (audit_github_repository, get_agent_wallet_status), which is predictable and readable. The only minor deviation is mixed verb styles/noun nesting lengths, but the convention is clearly consistent.
Only 2 tools for a server claiming to cover repo, dependency, and license security auditing. Effectively one functional audit tool plus one billing helper, which is thin relative to the broad scope advertised.
The single audit tool appears to bundle license, maintenance, and supply-chain checks, so the core operation exists and no CRUD lifecycle is needed for a read-only service. However, there are no separate dependency/license-specific or batch/comparison operations implied by the server's name, leaving notable gaps.
Evaluates any GitHub repository for license risk, maintenance velocity, stars/forks, and supply-chain security before code execution. WHEN TO USE: Call audit_github_repository when your task requires deterministic github-audit analysis for repo; use get_agent_wallet_status to check your remaining free trial quota or prepaid balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for unrelated domains or binary media. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Pass the target repo as a non-empty string; omit agent_id and tx_hash during your 5 free trial calls, or supply agent_id (agd_pass_...) / tx_hash for paid execution. Read-only and idempotent; results are cached for 1 hour (<5ms cache hit). $0.01 per call. Pricing: the first 5 calls per agent_id are free and failed calls are never charged. After 5 calls, the tool returns a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with a $2 Stripe top-up link and Base/Solana USDC addresses; complete payment, then retry with your agd_pass_ key in agent_id or pass tx_hash. Example: audit_github_repository(repo='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | GitHub repository in owner/name format (e.g. modelcontextprotocol/servers or langchain-ai/langgraph). | |
| tx_hash | No | Optional on-chain Base Mainnet (0x...) or Solana SPL USDC transaction hash. Omit unless settling an individual call directly on-chain instead of using an agd_pass_ key in agent_id. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identifier or prepaid agd_pass_ session key. Omit during your 5 free trial calls to use an ID automatically derived from your client IP, or pass your agd_pass_ key after topping up. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing 1-hour result caching with <5ms cache hits, per-call pricing, 5 free calls per agent_id, that failed calls are never charged, and that quota exhaustion returns a payment quote rather than a fatal error.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is front-loaded and the WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE structure is helpful, but the economics are stated redundantly: '$0.01 per call', 'first 5 calls free', and the free-trial/payment flow appear in the usage section and again in a separate pricing paragraph with the $2 Stripe link and USDC addresses. That redundancy inflates length without new information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Given a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, exclusions, caching behavior, and the complete payment/retry path including the example invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter (repo, agent_id, tx_hash) is already documented in the schema, including the owner/name format and the agd_pass_ key pattern. The description's PARAMETER INTERACTIONS section largely restates this (non-empty repo, omit agent_id/tx_hash during trial), adding only marginal emphasis. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (evaluates) and resource (GitHub repository) plus the exact dimensions analyzed: license risk, maintenance velocity, stars/forks, supply-chain security. It is immediately distinguishable from the only sibling, get_agent_wallet_status, which handles quota/balance rather than repo analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections name the condition (deterministic github-audit for a repo), the excluded case (unrelated domains, binary media), and the alternative tool for checking trial quota or balance. Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inspect an agent's account ledger: remaining free trial calls (out of 5), prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, and total LLM tokens saved. WHEN TO USE: Call before a batch of paid tool executions or after completing a Stripe or USDC top-up to confirm your balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to process web content, execute marketplace tools, or submit payments; use the other tools on this server for execution. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Omit agent_id to inspect the default trial account derived from your client IP, or pass your explicit agent_id or agd_pass_ session key to check a specific funded wallet. Free and read-only: never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call. Example: get_agent_wallet_status(agent_id='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional Agent ID or agd_pass_ session key to inspect. Omit to check the default wallet derived from your client IP. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call, and the default wallet is derived from the caller's client IP. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, but the cost/free-trial guarantee is meaningful behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the ledger contents, then structured WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / Example. The labeled sections make it scannable, though the repetition of the read-only guarantee and the worked example add a little bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still names the key fields. With a single optional parameter, no nested objects, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by naming the agd_pass_ session-key form and framing the two modes as an interaction (omit for IP-derived trial account vs. pass explicit agent_id/session key for a funded wallet), which aids selection even though the schema states the omit behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (agent's account ledger) and enumerates exactly what is returned: trial calls out of 5, prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, tokens saved. This clearly separates it from the sibling web-content tools (distill_webpage, extract_structured_data, recon_webpage_skeleton), which operate on webpages rather than wallet state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit WHEN TO USE (before paid tool batches, after a Stripe or USDC top-up) and WHEN NOT TO USE (not for processing web content, executing marketplace tools, or submitting payments). The exclusion clause routes the agent back to the other server tools for execution, so the alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
audit_github_repositoryget_agent_wallet_statusEvaluates any GitHub repository for license risk, maintenance velocity, stars/forks, and security.
Screens public GitHub repos and PRs to generate risk maps, findings, and merge-readiness signals.
Audit GitHub repos for malicious and supply-chain code before you depend on them.
GitHub project health, package dependency risk, trending repos, license & package comparison.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
