Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Scrapling x402 Data Store

by io.github.bnth09productions-maker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Crypto Due-Diligence quick check ($0.25)

dd_quick
Read-only

PAID $0.25 USDC. Quick due-diligence on a token or wallet: allow/caution/avoid with confidence, trust score, top 3 red flags, DEX liquidity and holder concentration. Chains base, ethereum, solana. No charge on failure.

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": "dd_quick"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNo
addressYesToken contract, Solana mint or wallet
api_keyNoOptional prepaid key (sk_scrapling_...) or catalog pass token (sdp_..., from pass_day/pass_month). Otherwise pay per call with x402 via _meta['x402/payment'].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / api_key / description
      Previous value: -"Optional prepaid key (sk_scrapling_...). Otherwise pay per call with x402 via _meta['x402/payment']."New value: +"Optional prepaid key (sk_scrapling_...) or catalog pass token (sdp_..., from pass_day/pass_month). Otherwise pay per call with x402 via _meta['x402/payment']."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true/openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: a $0.25 USDC charge, and the failure policy 'No charge on failure' — exactly the billing risk an agent needs to know before calling. It does not cover latency or whether results are cached, but the core cost contract is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the price and the verdict payload, then chains, then the billing guarantee. Nearly every clause carries information; the only redundancy is restating the chain enum that the schema already encodes.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming all returned fields, and it covers scope (asset types, chains) and billing risk. An agent can decide and call correctly; the only omission is the comparative positioning against dd_report, which is captured under usage guidelines rather than completeness.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'address' (contract/Solana mint/wallet) and 'api_key' (prepaid key vs x402 payment), and the chain enum is self-explanatory. The description adds only the chain list, which duplicates the enum in the schema, so it contributes little beyond structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (due-diligence verdict on a token or wallet) and enumerates the exact outputs (allow/caution/avoid, confidence, trust score, top 3 red flags, DEX liquidity, holder concentration). The word 'Quick' is the only signal distinguishing it from the sibling dd_report, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 description gives usable scope (token or wallet, chains base/ethereum/solana) but never says when to pick this over dd_report, token_verdict, or lookup_token_risk, all of which sit in the same namespace. Usage is implied by 'Quick' and the low price, but there are no explicit exclusions or routing rules.

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

All Scrapling x402 Data Store 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