Skip to main content
Glama

IntentFence Agent Action Firewall

by io.github.razel369

IntentFence Wallet Risk

intentfence_wallet_risk
Read-only

Paid AML/KYT wallet screening ($0.002 USDC on Base) before sending funds or approving a transaction. Checks live Base activity plus GoPlus sanctions, phishing, mixer, money-laundering, dark-web, blacklist, and related counterparty-risk flags, then returns a five-minute ES256 receipt. A low-risk result is not proof of identity, ownership, authorization, or future behavior.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesBase recipient or counterparty address to assess before payment.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses cost ($0.002), blockchain (Base), checks performed (GoPlus sanctions, etc.), receipt type (ES256, 5-minute), and a disclaimer about what low-risk does not prove. Annotations mark it read-only; description confirms non-destructive behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with key information (cost, purpose), efficient and no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a read-only screening tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, checks performed, output format (ES256 receipt), and limitations. Only minor gap: exact format of receipt output is not described, but the tool is sufficiently 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter. The description adds no new parameter details but reinforces the context (Base address). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this is a paid AML/KYT wallet screening tool for use before sending funds or approving a transaction on Base. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like intentfence_agent_risk_scan by focusing on wallet-specific risk assessment.

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?

Explicitly states usage context ('before sending funds or approving a transaction'), providing clear guidance on when to invoke. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

All IntentFence Agent Action Firewall 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from risk scanning to authorization, preflight checks, and specific data retrieval. Descriptions are detailed and non-overlapping.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'intentfence_<descriptive_name>' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a security firewall server, covering a range of free and paid services without being overwhelming or too sparse.

Completeness3/5

The set covers assessment, authorization, and data retrieval, but lacks tools for managing the firewall configuration itself (e.g., allowlist CRUD), leaving some gaps in lifecycle coverage.

Resources