Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Scrapling x402 Data Store

by io.github.bnth09productions-maker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Crypto Due-Diligence Agent: full report ($1.00)

dd_report
Read-only

PAID $1.00 USDC. Full due-diligence report on a token or wallet: executive verdict, red and green flags, DEX liquidity, holder concentration, 7-day whale moves/netflow, lending listings, counterparty check, recommendation (allow/caution/avoid) with confidence, data timestamps and explorer proof links. Deterministic; missing sections are marked. 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_report"
  }
}

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the $1.00 USDC charge, that failures are not billed, that output is deterministic, and that missing sections are explicitly marked rather than silently omitted. It also states which chains are supported and that results carry timestamps and explorer proof links — exactly the operational context an agent needs before spending money.

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-loads the price and the deliverable, then packs the section list into one dense sentence — appropriate for a high-value paid tool. Slightly list-heavy, but nearly every clause conveys something the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the verdict, flags, liquidity, holders, whale flow, listings, counterparty check and proof links. Payment/auth mechanics live in the schema's api_key description, so the description's silence there is acceptable, though a one-line pointer to pay-per-call vs prepaid key would close the loop.

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 description coverage, the schema already documents address and api_key, and the description adds nothing new about parameter formats. It only repeats the chain enum ('base, ethereum, solana'), which the schema already constrains, so no real semantic value is added on parameters.

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 resource and deliverable ('Full due-diligence report on a token or wallet') and enumerates the exact sections returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It never names its closest sibling (dd_quick) or explains how it differs from token_verdict/lookup_token_risk, so sibling differentiation is left implicit through the word 'full'.

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 only implied: 'Full' suggests this is the deeper/more expensive option, and the price plus 'No charge on failure' hints at when the cost is acceptable. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus dd_quick or the free lookup tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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