Skip to main content
Glama

Etherscan

by io.github.pipeworx-io

AI Visibility Check

ai_visibility_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model. Default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free); pass _apiKey to also probe Anthropic (BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly for those calls). Returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view. Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesThe thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. "Pipeworx", "OpenInvoice", "Acme Corp pricing".
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if "anthropic" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.
contextNoOptional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. "Boston restaurant", "B2B SaaS"). Helps disambiguate common names.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral traits: it is a probing action, free for Workers AI, requires API key for Anthropic (cost passed to user), and returns per-model data. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 concise: two sentences front-loaded with the main purpose and outcome, followed by brief parameter notes. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, parameter nuances, use cases, and expected return structure (per-model score plus combined view). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds extra context: default model, conditional requirement of _apiKey, and purpose of context parameter. This adds moderate value 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 the tool 'probes one or more LLMs for what they know about a business/brand/product/topic and scores visibility (0-100) per model'. It uses specific verbs and resources, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' which focuses on scanning rather than probing and scoring.

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 context for when to use the tool ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains the default vs paid model usage. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparisons to sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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

All Etherscan 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools serve nearly identical purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) with only marginal differences, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlaps in its goal of finding betting edges. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description in detail.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun (get_balance, list_transactions), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), brand prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and adjectival forms (deep_research, compare_entities). The naming is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' even for a general-purpose data server. The situation is worsened by the fact that the server is named Etherscan but only 5 of the 36 tools relate to Ethereum/blockchain, making the count unjustified for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

For the de facto domain (Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market research, entity profiles, claim validation, subscriptions, memory), the tool surface is quite comprehensive: it covers lookup, research, comparison, grounding, and monitoring. Missing are a few edge operations (e.g., no Etherscan transaction-by-hash tool), but the broader domain is well-covered with only minor gaps.

Resources