bitfence Risk Oracle
Server Details
Pre-transaction token risk checks for autonomous agents on six chains. Read-only; paid via x402.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- bitfenceai/bitfence
- GitHub Stars
- 1
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: full risk assessment, contextual risk with position data, and a lightweight quick check. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on the level of detail required.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (analyze_token, contextual_risk, quick_check). The verbs clearly indicate the action, and the nouns specify the scope, ensuring predictable naming.
With three tools, the set is tightly scoped for a risk oracle. Each tool adds distinct value without redundancy, and the count is appropriate for the domain's core operations.
The tool set covers the primary use cases: full risk analysis, context-aware assessment, and a quick pass/fail check. While there are no obvious gaps, adding batch analysis or historical risk data could enhance completeness, but it is not necessary for the core purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolsanalyze_tokenBInspect
Full risk assessment for a token. Returns risk score (0-100), risk level, confidence, recommendation (PROCEED/REQUIRE_HUMAN_APPROVAL/BLOCK), reasoning, and flags triggered. Equivalent to GET /v1/risk/{chain}/{address}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Blockchain to query: "solana", "base", "ethereum", "arbitrum", "bsc", or "hyperevm" | |
| address | Yes | Token mint address (Solana) or contract address (Base/EVM, 0x-prefixed) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool is equivalent to a GET endpoint, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, auth needs, or error handling. The output format is partially disclosed, but traits like rate limits or side effects are missing.
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?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes key output fields and REST equivalence, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.
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 tool with no output schema, the description partially covers return values but lacks details on interpretation (e.g., thresholds for risk levels). Given sibling tools exist, the description feels sufficient but not comprehensive for standalone use.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond listing 'chain' and 'address' indirectly via the endpoint. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states it performs a 'Full risk assessment for a token' and lists the output fields (risk score, level, etc.), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'contextual_risk' or 'quick_check', which could have overlapping purposes.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or when a lighter check would suffice, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
contextual_riskAInspect
Position-aware contextual risk assessment. Returns the full risk assessment plus position context: estimated slippage, effective cost, max safe position, portfolio concentration, and MEV exposure. Equivalent to POST /v1/risk/contextual.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Blockchain to query: "solana", "base", "ethereum", "arbitrum", "bsc", or "hyperevm" | |
| address | Yes | Token mint address (Solana) or contract address (Base/EVM, 0x-prefixed) | |
| position_size_usd | Yes | Planned position size in USD | |
| portfolio_size_usd | Yes | Total agent portfolio value in USD |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes what is returned but does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is adequate but lacks behavioral depth.
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?
The description is extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the purpose, list key outputs, and provide an API equivalency. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned components (slippage, effective cost, etc.). However, it does not specify the structure or format of the response, leaving some ambiguity. Still, it is largely complete for a tool with full parameter documentation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, as it only lists returned values.
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 clearly states 'Position-aware contextual risk assessment' and lists specific outputs (slippage, effective cost, etc.), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like 'analyze_token' and 'quick_check'.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_token, quick_check). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quick_checkAInspect
Lightweight go/no-go check for a token. Returns only risk_score, risk_level, recommendation, and cached flag. Use this when you just need a quick pass/fail without the full signal breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Blockchain to query: "solana", "base", "ethereum", "arbitrum", "bsc", or "hyperevm" | |
| address | Yes | Token mint address (Solana) or contract address (Base/EVM, 0x-prefixed) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The mention of a 'cached flag' hints at caching but does not explain behavior or data freshness.
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?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that front-load purpose and usage guidance. No redundant information, earning its place.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It defines input, output fields, and usage context. Minor missing details like possible output values or error handling are not critical for a lightweight check.
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?
Both parameters have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the blockchain and address. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it is a lightweight go/no-go check for a token, returning specific fields (risk_score, risk_level, recommendation, cached flag). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_token and contextual_risk by emphasizing speed and limited output.
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 explicitly says 'Use this when you just need a quick pass/fail without the full signal breakdown,' guiding the agent on when to select this tool over alternatives, which is highly effective.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!