ChainRay

Bridge Monitor

chain.bridge.monitor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect large token transfers involving known bridge contracts (Across, Wormhole, official bridges). EVM only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "chain.bridge.monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	EVM chain only. Supported chains: base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc, avalanche, zksync, linea, scroll, blast, mantle, gnosis, polygon-zkevm, mode, sei, celo, manta, taiko, fantom, cronos, opbnb, zora, worldchain, metis, fraxtal, kava, zetachain, filecoin, core-dao, aurora, moonbeam, klaytn, bob, canto, monad, tempo, megaeth, arc, plasma, katana, robinhood, pharos, hyperevm.	base
`minAmount`	No	Minimum USD value

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes	Blockchain queried
`bridges`	No	Bridge activity data
`totalVolume`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 3, 2026
RemovedOct 2, 2026
First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (EVM-only, which bridge contracts are watched), but says nothing about what 'large' means operationally, whether results are pushed as alerts versus returned, or any cadence/rate 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core detection purpose and immediately followed by the scope constraint. Zero filler or restated title text.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter description coverage, the definition needn't explain return values, and it correctly limits itself to purpose plus scope. The one remaining gap is sibling disambiguation from chain.bridge.flow, which would make routing unambiguous.

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% for both parameters, including the chain enum list and the minAmount default/minimum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's phrase 'large token transfers' loosely maps to minAmount but adds no threshold or format detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('large token transfers involving known bridge contracts') and names concrete protocols (Across, Wormhole, official bridges), so the subject matter is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling chain.bridge.flow, leaving the agent to guess which bridge tool applies.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'EVM only' clause functions as an implicit exclusion (don't use for non-EVM chains), and the monitoring intent is implied by the tool name. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the overlapping sibling chain.bridge.flow, which an agent would need in order to choose correctly.

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

All ChainRay 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?