Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_vet_agent

IS THIS AGENT SAFE TO CONNECT TO, AND SAFE TO PAY? The gap this closes: everything else here judges tokens, launches, thefts and wallets, but never the AGENT — which is the thing that actually holds the tools. Four checkable dangers, none of which require trusting a word of the description. It does not exist (a listing is not a service, and paying an endpoint that never answers is the simplest loss available). Its tools can move money (a name is marketing; the input SCHEMA is the capability, and only a QUANTITY field proves a payment surface, because a message has a recipient exactly as a payment does but you cannot move value without saying how much). It asks for key material (a schema field for a private key or seed is the whole attack, declared in the open). Or it is paid to an address with no past. Deliberately does NOT grade how good the description reads: a well-written tool listing is free to fabricate now, so scoring prose would hand a forgery a good mark. Read-only — it introspects and never calls a tool. Never returns "safe".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNothe agent's HTTP MCP endpoint
chainNobase (default)
payToNooptional: the address that would receive payment

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description covers behavior: read-only, never calls a tool, never returns 'safe', checks existence, money surface, key material, and payment history. However, output format is missing and some details are vague.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is lengthy and repetitive, starting with an ALL-CAPS question and containing redundant assertions. It could be significantly shortened without losing meaning.

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 tool is conceptually complex, and the description covers purpose and behavior but lacks output details and structured enumeration of the four dangers. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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% with clear descriptions for all three optional parameters (url, chain, payTo). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool checks if an agent is safe to connect and pay, distinguishing it from siblings that vet tokens, launches, etc. However, the description is overly verbose, slightly detracting from clarity.

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?

The description implies usage when vetting an agent for safety, and mentions four checkable dangers. It does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare to siblings like till_vet_approach, providing only implicit guidance.

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