Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TrollBridge MCP

by io.github.eric-tijerina
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

bridge_enrich

Mini's TrollBridge — wallet intel: type, balances, risk flags. TOLLED: $0.05 USDC per call via x402. If you cannot pay, this tool returns the 402 payment instructions instead of data. Optional limit 1-200.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bridge_enrich"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return (1-200). Default 50.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / address
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Wallet address to enrich.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max items to return (1-200). Default 50.",
+  "maximum": 200,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / network
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Which chain the address is on.",
-  "enum": [
-    "base",
-    "solana"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "address",
-  "network"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the toll ($0.05 USDC via x402) and the exact behavior on payment failure (returns 402 payment instructions instead of data). It still omits auth prerequisites beyond payment, rate limits, and the latency/data-freshness profile.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: identity and payload first, then the toll and its failure mode, then the parameter note. Every clause carries information, though the branding prefix 'Mini's TrollBridge' is expendable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the payment and failure behavior is well covered, but a critical gap remains: nothing explains what wallet(s) get enriched when the only input is `limit`, nor what the returned fields mean in practice.

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% and the single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default 50. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' merely restates that, adding no semantics the schema lacks.

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 names the resource precisely — wallet intel covering type, balances, and risk flags — so an agent knows what data it yields. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related siblings such as bridge_token_check, and the 'enrich' verb is never explained (enrich what, from which wallet?).

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over bridge_token_check or the other seventeen bridge_* siblings. The only conditional given is a payment fallback ('if you cannot pay...'), which is a transactional caveat rather than usage guidance.

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

All TrollBridge MCP 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