approvals_freeFREE. Approval counts + top-3 riskiest spenders for {address, chain}. Real result, no wallet. Upgrade to approvals for EVERY approval ranked + revoke calldata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain: ethereum | base | bsc | polygon | arbitrum | optimism. | |
| address | Yes | 0x wallet address to scan. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns real results, and requires no wallet. However, it does not specify read-only nature, rate limits, or potential errors, which would be valuable for a free tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and followed by the core functionality. It is tightly structured with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives a high-level summary of the output (counts and top-3 riskiest spenders) but lacks detail on the result structure or any additional behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would be helpful, but the tool is simple enough that this may suffice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions for 'address' and 'chain'. The description only references them as {address, chain} placeholders, adding no new semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns approval counts and top-3 riskiest spenders for a given address and chain. It distinguishes from the sibling 'approvals' tool by explicitly noting the free subset ('counts + top-3') and the full version ('EVERY approval ranked + revoke calldata').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this free tool vs the full 'approvals' tool by stating 'Upgrade to approvals for EVERY approval ranked + revoke calldata.' It also notes 'no wallet' as a key differentiator. However, it does not explicitly mention other sibling tools or provide explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool pair (paid and free) clearly delineates a distinct capability: approvals scanning, EIP-712 signature decoding, transaction simulation, and token safety. The free versions are explicitly described as teasers with pointers to the full paid versions, eliminating ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern: base name for the paid tool and base name + '_free' for the free counterpart. There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Although four of the tools are free variants, they serve a distinct tiered-access purpose and do not feel excessive.
The tool set covers the major wallet-safety domains: approval risks, off-chain signature risks, transaction simulation, and token rug-pull detection. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct address reputation lookup or transaction history analysis), but the core workflows are well covered.