Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TrollBridge MCP

by io.github.eric-tijerina
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

bridge_new_pairs

Mini's TrollBridge — newest token listings with rug scores. 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_new_pairs"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / chain
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Chain filter, e.g. base or solana.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max pairs to return (1-50). Default 20."New value: +"Max items to return (1-200). Default 50."
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Previous value: -50New value: +200
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 so well: it discloses the paid model ($0.05 USDC per call via x402) and, importantly, the failure mode — a 402 payment-instruction response instead of data when payment is unavailable. That is exactly the kind of behavioral trait an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of describing return structure or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by the payment model and parameter note. Three short sentences with little waste, though the trailing 'Optional limit 1-200' duplicates the schema and could be dropped.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and the payment-failure path, which is what an agent needs to decide and invoke. It would be stronger with a note on result ordering or freshness window, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents the single 'limit' parameter with its 1-200 range and default of 50. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' merely repeats that, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'newest token listings with rug scores,' which tells an agent this returns fresh token pairs enriched with a risk metric. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like bridge_fresh or bridge_token_check, so an agent must infer which 'newest listings' tool to pick.

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?

The description gives an implicit usage condition (you must be able to pay $0.05 USDC via x402), but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as bridge_fresh or bridge_token_check. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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