Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Fivebar Trading

by io.github.fivebar-xyz
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Is this website legit?

site_check
Read-only

Before you open, log in to or connect a wallet to a website or link: whether it's on MetaMask's open phishing list (what wallets use to block drainer sites), whether its name imitates a well-known brand (one letter off, the brand's name on another ending, the brand's name with words added, or punycode lookalike letters), when the domain was registered (RDAP), when the Wayback Machine first archived it, and whether it resolves. Read from public records, never by visiting the site. Verdict: high risk, caution or no warnings, with reasons; not being flagged doesn't make a site safe. Use for 'is this site legit?', 'is this link a scam?', 'is this the real Uniswap?'.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "site_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe website or link, e.g. example.com or https://example.com/claim

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description explains that the tool reads public records and never visits the site, specifies the sources and heuristics used, names the verdict levels, and warns that a lack of warnings does not make a site safe. This is strong behavioral context for a security-check tool.

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 description is dense and front-loads the main use case and check categories, with no obvious filler. However, the long initial sentence and parenthetical lists make it slightly harder to scan than a tighter structure would.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns; it does so by naming the verdict levels and noting that reasons are included. It also covers the public-records, non-visiting behavior and the key limitation that unflagged sites are not automatically safe, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already defines the single url parameter with an example. The description reiterates that the input can be a website or link, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action and scope: it checks whether a website or link is legitimate by consulting public records such as MetaMask's phishing list, brand-imitation heuristics, RDAP registration data, Wayback history, and DNS resolution. It returns a verdict, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool is for.

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 gives clear usage context: use it before opening, logging in to, or connecting a wallet to a site, and it lists example queries like 'is this site legit?' and 'is this the real Uniswap?'. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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