vordium-mcp

Agent usage

get_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Each agent's usage against its policy, as the chain accounts it. Ask: "How much of its daily loss limit has my agent used?"

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "get_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent`	No	optional agent address
`address`	Yes	the owner account

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No
`owner`	No
`agents`	No
`network`	Yes	testnet or mainnet
`summary`	Yes	one plain sentence
`available`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that values are chain-accounted usage against policy, but does not elaborate on output format, pagination, or edge cases beyond the 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a concrete example question. There is no unnecessary wording.

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?

For a read-only tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether omitting the agent returns usage for all agents under the owner.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the required owner address and optional agent address. The description does not add further meaning about how the optional agent parameter changes the result.

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?

The description states a clear resource: each agent's usage against its policy, as accounted on-chain. It does not differentiate this from siblings such as get_policy or get_agents, but the core purpose is understandable.

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?

The example question ('How much of its daily loss limit has my agent used?') gives a concrete use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

All vordium-mcp tools Inspect

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.