Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_b20_authentic

IS THIS A REAL BASE-NATIVE B20, OR AN ERC-20 WEARING ITS ADDRESS PREFIX? B20 is Base's native standard for compliant asset issuance (stablecoins, RWA); its tokens sit at addresses starting 0xb200 and run as a precompile, so a genuine one carries almost no EVM bytecode. As people learn to read 0xb200 as "official Base asset", a plain ERC-20 at a vanity address of the same prefix inherits that credibility for free — landing on it by chance is about 1 in 65,536. Both outcomes matter and differ: an impostor lacks the issuer controls the standard implies, while a GENUINE B20 lets its issuer freeze and burn a blocked holder's balance — a power no ERC-20 has and no ERC-20-shaped scanner looks for. Verdicts: native_b20 / prefix_impostor / not_b20 / unknown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase (default)
addressYestoken contract address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool analyzes on-chain data (bytecode, address prefix) and returns verdicts (native_b20, prefix_impostor, etc.). It does not mention any destructive side effects or specific permissions needed, but for a read-only verification tool this is reasonable.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is informative but somewhat verbose, containing educational material about B20 and ERC-20 differences. It could be shortened to focus on the tool's operation and outputs while maintaining clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the verification logic and verdicts but does not specify the output schema or format. Given no output schema, the agent may not understand how the verdict is returned (e.g., string, object). Additional detail on return structure would improve completeness.

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 system already documents both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the address's role in prefix checking, but does not provide additional technical details (e.g., address format requirements) beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states that the tool checks whether a token is a genuine Base-native B20 or an ERC-20 impostor, using bytecode and address prefix analysis. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, which focus on other finance or validation tasks.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to verify B20 authenticity) and explains the implications of each outcome. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, though the specificity makes misuse unlikely.

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

All biii toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct, well-named purposes (vet_agent vs vet_merchant), but there is notable overlap between till_trust and till_vet_merchant (both provide trust verdicts), and till_launch_funder vs till_funder_history are closely related. The descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent could still misselect between a few pairs.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the till_ prefix, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (check_invoice, create_charge, watch_wallet) while others are noun phrases (key_exposure, open_approvals, rug_powers) or bare nouns (floor, trust, roll). This is readable but not predictable, so an agent cannot reliably guess a tool name from a verb.

Tool Count2/5

At 29 tools, this server exceeds the 25+ threshold that signals an overgrown toolkit. Even with a broad domain, many tools are one-off niche scanners (till_b20_authentic, till_floor, till_meter) that inflate the surface and could be consolidated or externalized.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers the payment lifecycle comprehensively: create charges/invoices, check payments, verify delivery, generate receipts, rolls, and accounting exports. It also spans identity, trust, security scanning, and theft tracing. Minor gaps exist (no update/cancel for charges, no token-general vetting), but the non-custodial, read-only design makes these acceptable.

Resources