SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Is this address or domain on the ScamSniffer community

agent_intel_known_scams_blacklist_db

Read-only

Is this address or domain on the ScamSniffer community blacklist (public GitHub scam-database: wallet addresses, or phishing domains with their linked addresses)? Returns listed yes or no and the list size. A 'no' does not prove safety, and the list is not updated in real time. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_known_scams_blacklist_db"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	An Ethereum address (0x...) or a domain name such as degenalgo.art

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`type`	No
`query`	No
`listed`	No
`source`	No
`verdict`	No
`listSize`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld; the description goes well beyond by disclosing cost ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the payment rail (x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), that failed calls are not charged, and the crucial staleness limitation ('not updated in real time') plus the interpretation caveat for negative results. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before spending money on a call.

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 front-loaded question followed by scope, caveats, and pricing; there is little waste. It is dense but every clause (list contents, negative-result caveat, staleness, billing) carries decision-relevant information.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, data source, result shape (listed yes/no plus list size), limitations, and cost. Only the relationship to sibling reputation tools is missing, which is a modest gap.

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 already documents that the single 'query' param takes an Ethereum 0x address or a domain name. The description adds only the notion that listed domains carry linked addresses, which does not clarify accepted input formats or whether non-Ethereum addresses are valid. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a direct yes/no question naming the exact check ('Is this address or domain on the ScamSniffer community blacklist') and specifies the source and contents (public GitHub scam-database, wallet addresses or phishing domains with linked addresses). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names which sibling reputation tool (e.g. typosquat_phishing_domain_radar, ip_fraud_reputation_score) to prefer instead.

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 context is implied by the question framing and the 'no does not prove safety' caveat, which hints this is one signal among several. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to or from the many sibling reputation/phishing tools.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?