Skip to main content
Glama

Base Allowance Scan: Notable ERC-20 Approvals

base-allowance-scan
Read-onlyIdempotent

List notable ERC-20 allowances of a Base address (USDC/WETH/USDT/DAI/cbETH to DEX/bridge spenders). Use when checking approval risk of a wallet. Not for balances (use base-balance). Returns a free sample plus the paid URL and pay steps (no charge here); the full result costs $0.02 Base USDC via x402.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoInput for the paid endpoint: 0x Base address.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skuYes
noteNo
payToNo
priceNo
methodNo
networkNo
paid_urlYes
how_to_payYes
teaser_urlNo
your_inputNo
free_teaserNoFree sample output of this SKU (truncated); null if unavailable.
ready_requestNoExact paid HTTP request (method, url with your input, optional json_body) to send with an x402 client.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / ready_request
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Exact paid HTTP request (method, url with your input, optional json_body) to send with an x402 client."
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / free_teaser
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Free sample output of this SKU (truncated); null if unavailable."
      +}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Optional input (e.g. url / address / text) to pass to the paid endpoint as ?q= or JSON body."New value: +"Input for the paid endpoint: 0x Base address."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "how_to_pay": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "method": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "network": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "note": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "paid_url": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "payTo": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "price": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "sku": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "teaser_url": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "your_input": {}
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "sku",
      +    "paid_url",
      +    "how_to_pay"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds the non-obvious behavior that matters here: a free sample is returned plus a paid URL, nothing is charged at this step, and the full result costs $0.02 Base USDC via x402. That payment-path disclosure materially changes how an agent invokes and reports the tool.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, when to use it, and what it costs. The scope and routing constraint are front-loaded, and no sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description instead covers the things schema cannot: the sample-plus-paid-URL model and the x402 charge. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is documented as a 0x Base address. The description adds token/spender context for the response but no additional syntax or format guidance for the parameter, so the schema carries this dimension.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('notable ERC-20 allowances') plus precise scope (Base address, named tokens, DEX/bridge spenders). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling base-balance, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

States the trigger ('Use when checking approval risk of a wallet') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('Not for balances (use base-balance)'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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