Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

tnt-house-risk-data-api

by io.github.menantonio83-hue
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check risk for multiple Solana tokens at once

check_token_risk_batch

Same as check_token_risk but for up to 25 mints in one call — N mints charged as N calls, same per-call economics as check_token_risk, no bulk discount. All-or-nothing: if the batch can't be fully covered by remaining quota/credit, the whole batch is rejected rather than partially processed. Needs an API key (Authorization header or api_key argument) or x402 — no anonymous batch calls.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintsYes1-25 Solana token mint addresses
api_keyNoOptional. Your RiskDataApi key, for MCP hosts that cannot send an Authorization header. If both are present, the Authorization header wins.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. Your RiskDataApi key, for MCP hosts that cannot send an Authorization header. If both are present, the Authorization header wins.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 delivers the non-obvious traits: billing is N mints = N calls with no bulk discount, and the batch is all-or-nothing — rejected outright if quota/credit doesn't cover it, never partially processed. That atomicity and cost model are exactly what an agent must know before calling. Return shape and per-mint error handling are still unstated.

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 sibling comparison, then cost model, then atomicity, then auth. Every sentence carries distinct information. Slightly dense with repeated 'same per-call economics as check_token_risk' phrasing that could be trimmed.

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 2-parameter batch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, pricing, atomicity, and the single-vs-batch decision. The gap is response detail — no output schema and no statement of what each mint returns or how partial failure would look, though the all-or-nothing rule removes most of that concern.

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 mints (1-25) and api_key are already fully documented, including the 'Authorization header wins' precedence rule. The description restates the 25 cap and auth paths, adding only the cost implication of mints length (N mints = N charges). Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (check risk for mints) and immediately scopes it against the sibling: 'Same as check_token_risk but for up to 25 mints in one call.' An agent can distinguish batch from single without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (check_token_risk) and the condition selecting this tool (multiple mints, max 25). It also gives a prerequisite: API key or x402, no anonymous batch calls. It never states the inverse rule explicitly ('use check_token_risk for a single mint'), but the routing is unambiguous enough.

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

All tnt-house-risk-data-api 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