Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

quant-backtest-escrow-auditor

by io.github.adamgraymon
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

audit_smart_contract_escrow

[EN] Vertical 3 (Solidity Smart Contracts): Compile Solidity source with real solc 0.8.38, scan against rugpull backdoors (selfdestruct, delegatecall, tx.origin, assembly sstore) & verify required ABI functions. | [ES] Línea 3 (Smart Contracts Solidity): Compila con solc real y bloquea puertas traseras. | [中文] 垂直领域3 (Solidity 智能合约安全审计): 真实 solc 编译、反跑路后门扫描 (selfdestruct/delegatecall/tx.origin) 与 ABI 接口验证。

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": {
      "soliditySourceCode": "<soliditySourceCode>"
    },
    "name": "audit_smart_contract_escrow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contractNameNo
requiredFunctionsNo
soliditySourceCodeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the compiler version and the exact backdoor patterns checked, which is real behavioral context. However, it does not say what happens on compile failure, whether findings are returned or the call throws, or what the response contains.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The English sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, but the same content is repeated in Spanish and Chinese, roughly tripling length without adding information for an agent. The core statement is efficient; the duplication is not.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain inputs and what the audit returns. It covers the checks performed but leaves parameter semantics and result shape unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description hints at 'required ABI functions' (mapping to requiredFunctions) and implies source input, but never explains contractName or the format of requiredFunctions entries, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: compiles Solidity source with real solc 0.8.38, scans for rugpull backdoors (selfdestruct, delegatecall, tx.origin, assembly sstore), and verifies required ABI functions. The 'Vertical 3 (Solidity Smart Contracts)' framing distinguishes it from the other vertical-specific audit siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the vertical label and the mention of Solidity source, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the sibling audit tools. An agent must infer that this is the tool for Solidity contracts rather than RAG, GPU SLA, or backtest audits.

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

All quant-backtest-escrow-auditor 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