Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Einstein — Crypto & Market Intelligence

MEV Detection and Protection

detect_mev
Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect sandwich attacks and MEV extraction against a token or wallet, watch the live EVM mempool, or get a protected routing recommendation for a pending transaction. [Paid: $0.45–$0.60 per call from your Einstein credit balance. Free alternatives exist for several of these — see list_einstein_capabilities.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNodetection = historical MEV · mempool = live mempool watch · protection = protected routing advice.detection
chainNoBlockchain network.base
timeframeNoLookback window.24h
tokenAddressNoToken to inspect, when relevant.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skillNoWhich Einstein capability answered. These tools route onto one of many skills by an enum argument, so this names the branch that actually ran.
reasonNoWhy there is no analysis, when `available` is false.
analysisNoThe written answer, identical to the result's text block. This is the field to read: the rest of the payload is whichever capability answered, and its shape varies by tool and by argument.
availableNoTrue when the analysis ran. False when it did not — no capability matched the arguments, the caller is out of credit, billing was unavailable, or the skill produced nothing. NOT a statement about the market.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "analysis": {
      +      "description": "The written answer, identical to the result's text block. This is the field to read: the rest of the payload is whichever capability answered, and its shape varies by tool and by argument.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "available": {
      +      "description": "True when the analysis ran. False when it did not — no capability matched the arguments, the caller is out of credit, billing was unavailable, or the skill produced nothing. NOT a statement about the market.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "reason": {
      +      "description": "Why there is no analysis, when `available` is false.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "skill": {
      +      "description": "Which Einstein capability answered. These tools route onto one of many skills by an enum argument, so this names the branch that actually ran.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond-schema context: a per-call cost range and the existence of free alternatives, which meaningfully affects whether the agent should invoke this tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences carry all essential information: what the tool does, the three modes, cost, and alternatives. There is no fluff, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 four parameters, all with 100% schema coverage, the enum descriptions, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. It also adds the non-obvious billing and free-alternative context that would otherwise be 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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description maps the kind enum to natural-language scenarios, but it mostly restates the schema descriptions for detection, mempool, and protection. It also mentions 'wallet' while the schema only exposes tokenAddress, adding slight ambiguity.

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 names a specific resource and verb set: detect sandwich attacks/MEV against a token or wallet, watch the live EVM mempool, or get protected routing advice. It is concrete and distinguishes this tool from general onchain/analytics siblings such as inspect_onchain or analyze_wallet.

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?

The description clearly states the three supported use cases and adds practical selection guidance by flagging the paid nature and pointing to free alternatives via list_einstein_capabilities. It does not explicitly name all exclusion cases, but it gives enough context for an agent to decide whether this tool is appropriate.

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.