chain_block_number_preview
FREE live sample of the current Base mainnet block number — identical data to the paid chain_block_number tool. No payment required.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
tech-risk
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is a free sample and identical to the paid version, but lacks details on rate limits, latency, or response format. Basic behavioral context is given.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information with no wasted words. It is optimally concise for its purpose.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and relationship to the paid sibling. However, it does not specify the return value format, which could cause uncertainty for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter info. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The schema already covers everything, and the description does not detract.
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 provides a free live sample of the current Base mainnet block number, identical to the paid chain_block_number tool. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings and specifies the resource and verb.
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 mentions it is free and identical to the paid tool, implying its use for cost-free testing or sampling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are organized into clear families (chain, crypto, defi, pm, enrich, scan) and each targets a distinct data type. The preview tools are explicitly labeled as free samples, reducing but not eliminating confusion with their paid counterparts. Some overlap exists between chain_wallet and chain_balance, and between enrich_domain and enrich_tech_risk, but descriptions clarify the difference.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern using snake_case (chain_balance, crypto_funding, enrich_domain). Preview tools consistently append '_preview' to their paid counterpart. The only minor variation is abbreviations like 'tx', 'pm', 'defi', but these are uniform.
Tool Count3/5
At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The eight preview tools duplicate the functionality of their paid versions and inflate the count, though they serve a legitimate 'try before pay' purpose. The remaining 14 paid tools cover a wide range of risk data, making the count borderline appropriate.
Completeness4/5
The set covers on-chain balances, token security, DeFi yields, crypto prices, funding rates, prediction markets, domain enrichment, tech-risk CVE scanning, and MCP server auditing, which is a comprehensive risk toolkit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical data, no address reputation, no token price by address), but the core workflows are well covered.