Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

automaton

by uk.firstmention.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

basedue__due_alerts

Due-diligence alerts for a comma-separated list of Base tokens. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/basedue/due/alerts

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": "basedue__due_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokensNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tokens
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / tokens
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: cost ($0.01/call in USDC on Base), the x402 payment requirement injected via params._meta['x402/payment'], and the underlying GET endpoint (implying a read-only operation). It does not say what an 'alert' contains, whether results reflect live state, or what happens with unknown tokens, which leaves real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by pricing/payment and the endpoint. Little wasted wording, though the raw HTTP URL adds marginal value for an agent invoking the MCP tool.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the unusual parts (payment, cost, endpoint) well. What remains missing is the meaning of the returned 'alerts' and any cue for choosing this over the numerous sibling diligence tools, leaving it adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does: it specifies that 'tokens' is a comma-separated list of Base tokens, which the bare string schema does not convey. However it never clarifies whether tokens are contract addresses or symbols, nor mentions the required-but-hidden _meta payment parameter's role beyond the payment string.

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?

The description names the resource ('due-diligence alerts') and the input domain ('comma-separated list of Base tokens'), so an agent can tell roughly what it does. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, and 'alerts' is ambiguous (list existing alerts vs. generate a due-diligence signal), so it does not clearly separate itself from siblings like basedue__due, basedue__check, or basedue__tokenrisk.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many comparable diligence tools (basedue__check, basedue__tokenrisk, token_dd__check, due__due). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'due-diligence alerts'.

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

All automaton 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