Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Scrapling x402 Data Store

by io.github.bnth09productions-maker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Token verdict with facts ($0.005)

token_verdict
Read-only

PAID $0.005 USDC. go / caution / avoid verdict, 0-100 risk score and the facts behind it (liquidity, holders, top-10 concentration, LP locked, taxes, honeypot, mint/proxy/owner flags) for a token on base, ethereum, bsc, arbitrum, polygon, optimism, avalanche or solana. No charge if the scan fails.

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": "token_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNo
addressYesContract or Solana mint
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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: a $0.005 USDC charge, the x402/prepaid-key payment paths, and a no-charge policy on failed scans. It does not mention rate limits or latency, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Pricing is front-loaded, then the deliverable, then scope, then the refund caveat – a logical order with little filler. The middle sentence is a dense parenthetical list of facts that is long but each item earns its place by defining the return surface without an output schema.

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 burden of describing returns and does so explicitly (verdict, score, and the fact categories). Payment and failure behavior are covered; only response shape/error detail is left implicit, which is minor for a single-address lookup.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description compensates meaningfully by enumerating the eight supported chains that the bare 'chain' string property leaves undocumented. It also clarifies the address is a contract or Solana mint, and payment is explained for the api_key path.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-like deliverable ('go / caution / avoid verdict, 0-100 risk score') and enumerates the underlying facts and supported chains, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from the obvious sibling lookup_token_risk, which weakens differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description implies a due-diligence use case but never says when to pick this over lookup_token_risk or dd_quick, nor any prerequisites beyond an optional API key hint that lives in the schema. The only 'when' guidance is the refund condition ('No charge if the scan fails'), which is about billing, not tool selection.

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