Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Fivebar Trading

by io.github.fivebar-xyz
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Solana program: safe to integrate?

program_inspect
Read-only

Due diligence on a Solana program before you build on it or sign for it: whether it can still be upgraded and who holds the upgrade key (a single wallet, a Squads v4 multisig with its threshold, members and time lock, or another program-derived address), when it was last deployed, whether its deployed code matches a public repository build (OtterSec's verified builds), its IDL (instructions, account types, errors) from the Program Metadata program or Anchor's IDL account, and its security.txt contacts. Use for 'is this program safe?', 'who can upgrade X?', 'is it verified?', 'does it have an IDL?'. Facts about the program's controls, not an audit.

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": {
      "program": "<program>"
    },
    "name": "program_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
programYesThe program's address (base58)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes further by disclosing data provenance (Program Metadata program, Anchor's IDL account, OtterSec verified builds) and, critically, an explicit scope boundary: 'Facts about the program's controls, not an audit.' That caveat tells the agent not to over-claim safety conclusions, which is behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and every listed item corresponds to a real output. It is a single long sentence with nested parentheticals, though, which makes it denser than it needs to be; splitting the enumerated return fields into their own sentence would read better.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so item by item, including the multisig threshold/members/time-lock detail. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret the result 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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that 'program' is a base58 address. The description adds no format, validation, or failure-mode detail for it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('due diligence on a Solana program') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: upgrade authority and its key type, last deploy time, verified-build match, IDL, and security.txt contacts. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like account_decode or repo_check without opening any schema.

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?

It supplies concrete triggering questions ('is this program safe?', 'who can upgrade X?', 'is it verified?', 'does it have an IDL?') and a timing cue ('before you build on it or sign for it'). It does not name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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

All Fivebar Trading 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