Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Feegate AI Agent data marketplace catalog & platform metrics

by org.feegate
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

approval-audit.allowance_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ask "is this token approval dangerous" — free: allowance, is-unlimited, is-spender-contract, verdict. ｜ 免费档：返回代币符号、授权额度（人类单位与原始值）、是否无限授权、spender 是否为合约、ok / caution / danger 结论。参数 owner / token / spender 必填，chain 可选。

[zh] 供应方资产「授权额度与 spender 风险」免费（每日限额按调用方计）。 入参：owner、token、spender、chain。 [en] Vendor asset "授权额度与 spender 风险". Free (daily per-caller quota). Args: owner, token, spender, chain. 付款/支付头在 MCP 请求头里带（X-Payment / X-Payment-Tx / Authorization: Bearer fg_…），不要放进参数。

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "token": "<token>",
      "spender": "<spender>"
    },
    "name": "approval-audit.allowance_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNo
ownerYes
tokenYes
spenderYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: a free tier with a daily per-caller quota, and the requirement that payment headers (X-Payment / X-Payment-Tx / Authorization: Bearer) go in MCP headers, not parameters — a real failure mode an agent would otherwise hit. It also enumerates output fields, which matters since no output schema exists.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The content is delivered three times (English preamble, zh block, en block) with near-identical wording, so the effective signal is roughly one third of the text. The genuinely useful payment-header warning is buried at the very end rather than front-loaded.

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 4-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition does cover quota, auth placement, and return fields, which is more than most. It still leaves parameter formats and the chain value set unexplained, and the tri-lingual padding dilutes rather than completes the picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the names and which are required — information already encoded in the required array. It never explains that owner is the token holder, spender the approved address, or what address/chain formats are accepted.

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?

The opening question "is this token approval dangerous" plus the named return fields (allowance, is-unlimited, is-spender-contract, verdict) makes the verb and resource unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling approval-audit.approval_risk, which by name appears to cover adjacent territory, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation.

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?

Framing the tool as the answer to "is this token approval dangerous" gives implied usage context, and the free-tier/quota note hints at cost-driven selection. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for broader or deeper approval analysis.

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

All Feegate AI Agent data marketplace catalog & platform metrics toolsInspect
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