Crypto rug/scam-risk scans + wallet snapshots (EVM + Solana), paid per call via x402.
Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: API info, rug scan preview, and wallet report preview. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but they do not follow a strict verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'paid_api_info' is adjective_noun_noun). The pattern is mostly consistent.
With only 3 tools, the server feels limited for a crypto domain. It provides basic previews and API info but lacks core trading or data retrieval tools, making the scope narrow.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a crypto MCP. Missing essential operations like price queries, balance checks, transactions, or trading actions. Only previews and API info are offered.
paid_api_infoAInspectMachine-readable description of the full paid API (endpoints, price, x402 payment).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is a read-only information retrieval (it returns a 'description'), which is sufficient for a non-destructive action. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits.
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 a single 11-word sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word adds value; no redundancy.
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?
Given no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (endpoints, price, x402 payment) in machine-readable form. It is complete for an info tool, though the return format is unspecified.
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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score is 4. The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed.
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 it provides a machine-readable description of the full paid API, specifying coverage of endpoints, price, and x402 payment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (rug_scan_preview, wallet_report_preview) which are unrelated.
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 usage for obtaining info about the paid API, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, nor does it reference alternatives. Context is clear but no exclusion criteria or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rug_scan_previewAInspectFree PREVIEW of a memecoin rug/scam-risk scan for a token (EVM chains or Solana).
Returns the overall risk level/score and up to two headline warning flags. The FULL
report (all 30+ flags, taxes, holder concentration, LP lock, authorities, market data)
is available from the paid HTTP endpoint referenced in `full_report`.
chain: e.g. 'base', 'ethereum', 'bsc', 'arbitrum', 'solana'.
address: the token contract / mint address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| address | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: it returns a risk preview with limited warnings. No side effects mentioned, but the tool is likely read-only. Could add that it is non-destructive.
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?
Concise and well-structured: the first line states purpose, followed by output summary, then parameter explanations in bullet format. No redundant sentences.
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 tool has two parameters and no output schema. The description explains inputs and the basic output (risk level/score, up to two warnings). It also mentions the full report endpoint. Lacks exact format of risk level, but sufficient for a preview tool.
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 has zero description coverage, but the tool description adds concrete examples for 'chain' (e.g., 'base', 'ethereum', 'bsc', 'arbitrum', 'solana') and clarifies 'address' as the token contract or mint address, adding significant meaning beyond the schema titles.
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?
Clearly states the tool provides a 'Free PREVIEW' of a rug/scam-risk scan for tokens on EVM chains or Solana. Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on preview of risk scan, while siblings are paid_api_info and wallet_report_preview.
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?
Explicitly states it returns risk level/score and up to two warnings, and references the paid HTTP endpoint for the full report. Provides parameter examples but could be clearer on when to use this preview versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wallet_report_previewAInspectFree PREVIEW of a wallet portfolio snapshot for any public address.
Returns total USD value, number of holdings, and the single largest holding. The FULL
itemized holdings breakdown is available from the paid HTTP endpoint in `full_report`.
chain: e.g. 'base', 'ethereum', 'optimism', 'polygon', 'solana'.
address: a public wallet address (read-only; no keys needed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| address | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only nature, no keys needed, and that only a preview is returned. It could mention potential errors or rate limits, but overall it is transparent about capabilities and limitations.
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?
Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return values, then parameter details. No redundant or missing information; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the essentials. It could clarify the return format (e.g., JSON object) but is otherwise complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 description explains both parameters (chain and address) with examples and notes, significantly adding meaning beyond the bare schema (which has 0% coverage). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 it is a 'Free PREVIEW of a wallet portfolio snapshot for any public address' and lists the specific return values (total USD value, number of holdings, largest holding). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'rug_scan_preview' and 'paid_api_info', which are different tools.
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?
It explicitly states when to use: for a quick free summary. It also provides a clear alternative: 'The FULL itemized holdings breakdown is available from the paid HTTP endpoint in full_report', guiding the agent away from this tool when full data is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Solana address risk grades and token scans for AI agents. Pay-per-call via x402 (USDC on Base).
Free token-safety scans + paid x402 verdicts, signals, radar & EVM swap quotes for AI agents.
Free token-safety scans + paid x402 verdicts, signals, radar & EVM swap quotes for AI agents.
Pay-per-call Solana token risk intelligence: 8 tools via x402. From $0.005 USDC, no API key.
