Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_launch_funder

WHO PAID FOR THIS LAUNCH, AND WHAT ELSE DID THEY PAY FOR? Follows the money backwards: a token names its creator, a creator minted minutes ago names the wallet that funded it, and that funder usually funded others. Three free explorer queries surface a cluster no buyer can see from a chart. Proven live: one funder had sent an identical 15.020 ETH to 26 fresh wallets. Reports STRUCTURE ONLY — a shared funder proves shared control or shared infrastructure, never fraud; a launchpad and a rug factory are indistinguishable from the graph. What it does prove is that these tokens share fate and should be judged together.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase (default) — chains with a public Blockscout instance
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?

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that three free queries are executed, reports structure only, and clarifies what the tool proves (shared control/infrastructure) and does not prove (fraud). This is high behavioral transparency.

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 a single energetic paragraph that front-loads the purpose. It is concise for the content it covers, though the dramatic tone and example could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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 absence of output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's operation, result type (structure only), limitations, and an illustrative example. It covers the necessary context for agent decision-making.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema for 'chain' and 'address'; it merely restates the token contract context.

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 clearly states the tool traces the funding source of a token and exposes other tokens funded by the same wallet. It uses specific verbs like 'follows the money backwards', making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

While the description implies the tool is for uncovering hidden clusters of related tokens, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like till_funder_history or till_kya, nor does it state when to use this tool over alternatives.

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