Checks whether a token on Base is safe enough for an autonomous agent to trade. Returns riskScore, riskLevel, and shouldExecute with structured reasons. Requires x402 payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token_address | Yes | Base contract address (0x...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the read-oriented check behavior, the specific return fields (riskScore, riskLevel, shouldExecute), and the x402 payment requirement. It could add more detail about side effects or edge cases, but for a checking tool it is reasonably transparent.
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?
Two sentences contain all essential information: purpose, return values, and payment requirement. Nothing is redundant or extraneous.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the key operational details: what to pass, what will come back, and the payment requirement. It could explain the meaning of riskLevel thresholds or execution rules, but this is not required to invoke the tool 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% because 'token_address' is documented as a Base contract address. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Checks whether') and a clear resource ('a token on Base'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. Even without siblings to distinguish against, the safety-check intent is precise and unambiguous.
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?
The description establishes the clear context: an autonomous agent deciding whether a Base token is safe to trade. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling tools exist, the context is sufficient to guide when this tool is relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with other tools. The tool's purpose is clearly stated.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (check_token_risk), which is consistent and descriptive.
One tool is at the lower boundary of acceptable. For a narrowly focused token risk checker, it could be sufficient, but the generic server name suggests a broader scope.
The server name 'agentrisk' implies a broader risk assessment domain, but only token risk on Base is covered. Missing other risk types or additional token analysis features.