Moonbeam paid calls

Risk address

risk_address

Read-only

One risk.address answer, bought through Moonbeam. The answer is checked before you are charged, and a failed answer is not charged. One call is 0.0012 USDC, paid with x402 on Base.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "chainId": "<chainId>"
    },
    "name": "risk_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	the 0x address
`chainId`	Yes	the chain the address is read on

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and open-world; the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not cover: an explicit price (0.0012 USDC per call), the payment rail (x402 on Base), and a charge-protection guarantee that failed answers are not billed. That cost/settlement information is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a paid tool. It stops short of saying how the answer is validated or what happens on timeout.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the pricing/charge-protection facts are stated plainly. The opening sentence is the weakest, leading with opaque product jargon rather than a plain statement of what is returned.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what an "answer" looks like — a score, verdict, flags, or raw payload — but it does not. Payment and safety behavior are well covered, yet an agent cannot predict the return shape at all.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form, and the description adds nothing about address format or chainId values. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"One risk.address answer" identifies the resource in product terms but never states the verb or what the answer actually contains — an agent must infer it returns some kind of risk assessment for an address. The phrase "bought through Moonbeam" while payment is "on Base" muddies what the tool does versus how it is paid for. Sibling tools (data_onchain_query, market_price) are not differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the siblings, no prerequisites beyond payment, and no exclusions. The only implicit guidance comes from the address/chainId parameters, which imply a per-address lookup.

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

All Moonbeam paid calls tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?