Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

On-chain Forensics

by dev.onchainforensics
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Token verdict

token_verdict
Read-onlyIdempotent

$0.02. Token verdict card for any ERC-20 on Base or Ethereum (address+chain), any registered alias (token=btsla|ondo|edel|...), or any XRPL issued currency (chain=xrp + issuer + currency): activity score 0-100, verdict tier (RED_HOT/HEAVY_FIRE/ACTIVE/THIN/SUSPICIOUS_THIN/DORMANT), transfers, unique wallets, mints/burns, concentration, whale flags, plain-English take.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "token_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain to read: base (default), ethereum, or xrp. With xrp, pass an XRPL issuer in address and the issued currency in currency.
tokenNotoken alias (btsla, bcspx, ondo, edel, rlusd, bitstamp-usd, ...)
addressNoEVM token contract (0x...) or XRPL issuer (r...)
currencyNoXRPL issued-currency code (3 letters or 40-char hex), for chain=xrp

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a $0.02 cost per call, which is material for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It does not disclose latency, caching, or what happens when an alias is unregistered.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with price and then the resource. The colon-separated metric list is scannable and every clause carries information, though the '$0.02' opener and the metric dump make it slightly breathless.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it does — score range, verdict tiers, transfer/wallet/mint metrics, concentration, whale flags, and a narrative summary. Price and all three input modes are covered; only error and edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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 schema already explains chain enum semantics, the XRPL issuer/currency pairing, and the address pattern. The description reinforces the chain=xrp workflow and gives concrete alias examples, but adds little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource — a 'token verdict card' — with a precise enumeration of the three input modes (EVM address+chain, registered alias, XRPL issuer+currency) and the metrics returned. It never differentiates itself from the sibling token_profile, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which of the two to pick.

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?

It implicitly tells the agent how to address each chain type (chain=xrp with issuer in address plus currency; alias via token=), which is useful selection guidance for input form. It offers no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to token_profile, wallet_screen, or any alternative.

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

All On-chain Forensics 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