Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Scrapling x402 Data Store

by io.github.bnth09productions-maker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Security risk-check ($0.0045, 3 free/day)

intel_risk_check
Read-only

PAID $0.0045 USDC (3 free/IP/UTC-day). One wallet/contract → MALICIOUS/HIGH_RISK/WATCH/LOW_RISK/UNKNOWN verdict + 0-100 score from our ~57k labels (OFAC/sanctions/scam/exploit/mixer), live hack-tracker attribution and Base USDC poisoning flags. Covered by pass_day ($2) / pass_month ($25) (≤$1/call). Stolen-funds $12 is NOT covered by passes.

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": "intel_risk_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesWallet or contract address
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. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that with pricing, the free-quota boundary, pass coverage limits, and the sources behind the verdict (~57k labels, hack-tracker attribution, Base USDC poisoning flags). It does not disclose latency, caching, or what a lookup on an unknown address returns.

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 tight sentences, price and quota front-loaded, verdicts and data sources in the middle, and pass exclusions last. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers cost, quota, verdict vocabulary, scoring scale, and data provenance — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (unknown address, error/refund handling) rather than anything blocking invocation.

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% and both parameters already document their types and the api_key/x402 payment path, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the address parameter (chain coverage, format) and its payment text largely duplicates what the schema already says.

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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource ('One wallet/contract → verdict + 0-100 score') and enumerates the exact verdict buckets, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not mention the near-identical siblings free_intel_risk_check (free tier) or intel_risk_batch, which is the one differentiator an agent most needs.

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?

Cost and quota information (3 free/IP/UTC-day, $0.0045 paid, pass_day/pass_month caps, stolen-funds $12 excluded from passes) implicitly guides selection on price. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement, and the obvious candidate — using the free variant first — is never named.

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