Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_watch_wallet

WHAT CHANGED AROUND THIS WALLET SINCE WE LAST LOOKED? The other tools answer at a point in time; this is what turns them into a guard, because it REMEMBERS and therefore distinguishes a new door from an old one. Three unlimited approvals granted last year are a standing condition; a fourth appearing this morning is an event, and only the second deserves to interrupt anyone — a monitor that repeats its standing conditions every run teaches its reader to close it, and a closed monitor is worth nothing. Detects new live allowances and first-time counterparties, using TRANSACTIONS rather than event logs (an ERC-20 Transfer log names whoever the emitting contract chose, so it cannot establish that this wallet sent anything). Reports its own blind spots every run: on a wallet monitor an empty alert list reads as "you are safe", so a check that could not complete is stated, never swallowed. First run is an inventory, not a set of events. Read-only: holds no key, cannot revoke or sign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase (default) | ethereum
ownerYesthe wallet address to watch
persistNodefault true — save state so the NEXT call can diff against it. Pass false for a one-off look that does not become the baseline.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: uses transactions not event logs, reports blind spots, first run is inventory, read-only, and cannot revoke or sign.

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?

Description is verbose and includes stylistic commentary (e.g., 'Three unlimited approvals...'), which could be condensed. However, it is front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return behavior (alert list, blind spots) and operational details. Covers key aspects for an agent to use correctly.

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 adequate descriptions for each parameter. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, e.g., the persist parameter is elaborated on but already well-described in 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?

Description clearly states the tool detects changes around a wallet since last look, distinguishing it from point-in-time tools. The verb 'watch' and resource 'wallet' are specific, and it explicitly contrasts with siblings.

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?

Provides context on when to use: for monitoring over time as a guard. Contrasts with other tools that answer at a point in time. Lacks explicit when-not conditions but offers clear usage 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