Skip to main content
Glama

onyx-mcp

by io.github.dimitrilaouanis-tech

onyx_erc8004_lookup

Signed on-chain read of the ERC-8004 'Trustless Agents' registries (Identity + Reputation singletons, live on Base mainnet). Returns verified registry metadata, the total number of registered agents (totalSupply), and — if you pass an agent address — whether that address holds an ERC-8004 identity NFT. Read-only eth_call, no funds; the whole reading is Ed25519-signed by 0n1x so an agent can prove the registry fact before trusting a counterparty. (price: $0.05 USDC, tier: metered)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain to read (default 'base' = Base mainnet, eip155:8453).
addressNoOptional agent EVM address (0x...) to check for an ERC-8004 identity (balanceOf > 0).
registryNoWhich singleton to read (default 'identity').

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the safety profile: read-only eth_call, no funds, Ed25519-signed, and a price point. This goes beyond basic semantics and gives the agent confidence in the tool's side effects.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value (operation, return data, safety, pricing). No verbose or redundant language.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return values (metadata, totalSupply, identity status) and the signing mechanism. It also mentions the live network (Base mainnet). For a read-only lookup tool, this is complete and self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds minor reinforcement (e.g., linking address to the identity NFT check) but does not provide meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a signed on-chain read of ERC-8004 registries, returning metadata, totalSupply, and an identity check for an optional address. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like onyx_agent_registry or onyx_agent_verify.

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 description provides a clear use case: an agent can prove a registry fact before trusting a counterparty. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All onyx-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a specific aspect of security or verification, from agent liveness to token risk to transaction preflight, with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Even similar-sounding tools like tx_guard and tx_preflight cover distinct scenarios.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'onyx_<descriptive_name>' pattern using snake_case, making it easy to infer purpose from the name. No mixing of styles or conventions.

Tool Count4/5

23 tools is on the higher end but justified by the broad scope of security services offered, covering many distinct verification needs without being excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides a comprehensive surface for agent security, including pre-payment checks, smart contract audits, token risk, merchant verification, and identity attestation. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources