Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Scrapling x402 Data Store

by io.github.bnth09productions-maker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Batch security risk-check ($0.15 / up to 50)

intel_risk_batch
Read-only

PAID $0.15 USDC. Risk-check up to 50 addresses in one call (~$0.003/ea). Same verdict fields as intel_risk_check (poisoning RPC skipped for speed).

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": {
      "addresses": "<addresses>"
    },
    "name": "intel_risk_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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'].
addressesYesComma-separated addresses, max 50

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/no-side-effect profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a hard cost ($0.15 USDC), the payment mechanism implied by the schema's x402 note, and the important caveat that poisoning RPC is skipped for speed, meaning verdicts can differ from intel_risk_check. It does not state rate limits or failure behavior for addresses over the 50 cap.

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?

Three short sentences, price and batch limit front-loaded, with the fidelity trade-off stated last. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers cost, capacity, and the verdict-parity caveat. Output shape is delegated to intel_risk_check via "Same verdict fields as", which is workable but requires the agent to consult the sibling to learn what those fields are.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the comma-separated max-50 format and the api_key/pass options. The description only restates the 50-address ceiling and adds a per-address price, which is marginal value over the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Risk-check up to 50 addresses in one call") plus the price and a per-address cost. It also positions itself against the single-address sibling intel_risk_check, so an agent can tell the batch variant from the single variant without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The "up to 50 addresses in one call" framing plus the per-address price break makes the batch use case clear, and naming intel_risk_check implies the singular alternative. It stops short of an explicit "use this when you have N>1 addresses, use intel_risk_check otherwise" rule, and never mentions free_intel_risk_check as a zero-cost alternative.

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