Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

What one spender can still move

chain_wallet_approvals

Read-onlyIdempotent

allowance(owner, spender) across up to 10 tokens for one wallet — the standing-approval audit that answers 'if this address gets phished tonight, what leaves'. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Chains: base, ethereum, arbitrum, bsc, polygon, optimism, avalanche. Byte-identical to GET /chain/wallet-approvals?chain=base&owner=0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913&spender=0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000&tokens=0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913,0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes	chain key: base, ethereum, arbitrum, bsc, polygon, optimism, avalanche [required]
`owner`	Yes	holder address [required]
`tokens`	Yes	comma list of up to 10 ERC-20/ERC-721 contract addresses [required]
`spender`	Yes	allowance spender address [required]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ts`	No
`note`	No
`rows`	No
`chain`	No
`owner`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`chainId`	No
`spender`	No
`requested`	No
`chainLabel`	No
`openApprovals`	No
`unrestrictedApprovals`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "chain": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "chainId": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "chainLabel": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "openApprovals": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "owner": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "requested": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "rows": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "spender": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "unrestrictedApprovals": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: cost per call ($0.001 USDC), supported chains, and byte-identical equivalence to a GET endpoint. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the description's additions are meaningful but not exhaustive (no rate limits or failure modes).

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 core purpose, then cost, chains, and a wire-format example. The URL is verbose but serves as a concrete parameter illustration; otherwise, the text is dense and free of fluff.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately covers chains, cost, token budget, and why an agent would invoke this tool. Minor omissions like error handling or rate limits are not critical here.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example URL and clarifies the 'up to 10 tokens' ceiling, but these add marginal meaning over the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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?

States the exact operation ('allowance(owner, spender) across up to 10 tokens for one wallet') and frames it as a standing-approval audit. This differentiates it from narrower siblings like chain_allowance or chain_nft_approved, and the security-oriented phrasing ('if this address gets phished tonight, what leaves') makes the intent unmistakable.

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?

Provides a concrete use case as a security audit for standing approvals, which strongly implies when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid) tools Inspect

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

Need Help?