Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

automaton

by uk.firstmention.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

token_dd__tx

One-call token due diligence for Base/Ethereum tokens: DexScreener markets + GoPlus security/holders + chain RPC, joined and scored. Free /preview teaser. 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/token-dd/tx

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>"
    },
    "name": "token_dd__tx"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain: base, ethereum, etc.
addressYesToken contract address, 0x + 40 hex

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Previous value: -"0x-prefixed 40-hex token contract address"New value: +"Token contract address, 0x + 40 hex"
    • changedInput schema / properties / chain / description
      Previous value: -"Chain id, e.g. base"New value: +"Chain: base, ethereum, etc."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "chain",
-  "address"
-]New value: +[
+  "address"
+]
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses the upstream data sources, that results are 'joined and scored,' that there is a free preview tier, and the exact payment mechanism and price. That is substantially more than most definitions offer. It stops short of describing what the free preview omits versus the paid response, or error/rate-limit behavior.

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?

The core capability is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by sources, then commercial and transport details — a sensible ordering. It is dense but largely waste-free; the telegraphic 'Free /preview teaser.' fragment is slightly clipped but conveys a distinct tier.

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 multi-source aggregation tool with no output schema, the description should sketch the return shape (what the 'score' is, what sections come back, whether preview is truncated). It says results are 'joined and scored' but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure and preview-vs-paid delta. Payment, transport, and sourcing details are complete, so the gap is confined to return-value expectations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the two visible parameters are already documented, which sets a baseline of 3. The description earns an extra point by documenting a parameter that is NOT in the schema: the x402 payment object at params._meta['x402/payment']. Without that sentence an agent could not construct a paid call correctly.

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 description names a specific verb and resource: 'One-call token due diligence for Base/Ethereum tokens,' and enumerates the data sources aggregated (DexScreener markets, GoPlus security/holders, chain RPC). An agent knows exactly what the call produces conceptually. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as token_dd__check, token_dd__verify, or basedue__tokenrisk, and the '_tx' name suffix is misleading since the required parameter is a token contract address, not a transaction.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the many alternative due-diligence siblings in the same family. The only usage-adjacent content is commercial ('Free /preview teaser', '$0.01 per call'), which tells the agent about cost but not about selection context or prerequisites.

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