Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_vet_asset

Is a TOKENIZED ASSET (stock/treasury/RWA) contract the GENUINE issuer's, or an impersonator? genuine / impersonation / unsafe / unknown — fail-closed (unknown is never genuine). Catches the FBI-flagged lookalike-token fraud. Registry is authoritative: seed only; source real addresses from issuer official docs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYes0x contract address of the token
claimedIssuerNowhat it claims to be, e.g. "BlackRock"
claimedSymbolNoe.g. "BUIDL", "TSLAx"

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fail-closed behavior ('unknown is never genuine') and the return categories. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is two sentences, both concise and informative. The first sentence states the purpose and outputs, the second adds critical context about the fraud use case and authoritative source. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the output categories but does not specify the return structure or differentiate between 'unsafe' and 'impersonation'. It covers the core purpose but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response format.

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 extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; it only implies that 'claimedIssuer' and 'claimedSymbol' are used for verification. No additional context or formatting details are provided.

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 verb 'vet' and the resource 'asset', and specifies the outcome categories (genuine, impersonation, unsafe, unknown). It distinguishes from sibling tools like till_vet_meme and till_vet_agent by focusing on tokenized assets and issuer verification.

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 gives context on when to use (detecting impersonator tokens) and provides a usage hint ('source real addresses from issuer official docs'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context naturally differentiates.

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