Skip to main content
Glama

bitfence Risk Oracle

by io.github.bitfenceai

contextual_risk

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesBlockchain to query: "solana", "base", "ethereum", "arbitrum", "bsc", or "hyperevm"
addressYesToken mint address (Solana) or contract address (Base/EVM, 0x-prefixed)
position_size_usdYesPlanned position size in USD
portfolio_size_usdYesTotal agent portfolio value in USD

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Describes return content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. Without annotations, the description provides only high-level output listing.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second enumerates outputs and API equivalence. Efficient, front-loaded, no fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequately covers purpose and key outputs, but lacks information on response format, error handling, and usage prerequisites. With no output schema or annotations, some completeness gaps remain.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear types, examples, and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Explicitly states it performs a position-aware contextual risk assessment and lists specific outputs (slippage, cost, max safe position, etc.), clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'quick_check' or 'analyze_token'.

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?

Implied usage for when a user needs risk assessment with position context, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, nor any exclusion criteria.

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

All bitfence Risk Oracle toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The two tools have distinct purposes: analyze_token provides a base risk assessment, while contextual_risk adds position-aware context. Descriptions clearly differentiate them, though both are risk assessments and could be confused in some workflows.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming mixes conventions: 'analyze_token' follows verb_noun, while 'contextual_risk' is adjective_noun. This inconsistency is noticeable but still readable and understandable.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the count is on the low end but appropriate for a focused risk oracle. It covers the essential functionality without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core domain of token risk assessment with a basic and contextual variant. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch or historical analysis), but it's a reasonable v1 surface.

Resources