Skip to main content
Glama

Vino & Views

by io.github.oriondrayke
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

allowance_risk_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free. Live ERC-20 allowance, owner balance and spender-code check at one block; flags effectively unlimited approvals.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / max_charge_atomic
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Max Charge Atomic"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / operation_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Operation Id"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / operation_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Operation Id"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_charge_atomic
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Max Charge Atomic"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context: the call is free, the read is a live single-block snapshot rather than cached state, and the response flags effectively unlimited approvals. Missing rate-limit/latency notes, but this is solid added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence: cost first, then the operation, then the key output signal. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no-output-schema, single-object read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, data freshness and the headline output behavior. It is only marginally short on supported chains and whether any secondary output accompanies the unlimited-approval flag.

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?

The description maps loosely to the inputs (allowance/owner balance/spender-code imply token, owner, spender), but with 0% schema description coverage at the top level it does not state the chain argument, the supported chain enum, or address format. It adds partial meaning but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('check') and resource ('ERC-20 allowance, owner balance and spender-code') and names the signal it surfaces ('flags effectively unlimited approvals'). It is clearly distinct from sibling mutation/prepare tools, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, tx_preflight.

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?

'Free' hints at the no-cost pre-check use case and 'at one block' implies a point-in-time snapshot, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when an agent should prefer tx_preflight or claim_worth_it instead.

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

All Vino & Views 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