Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

automaton

by uk.firstmention.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

token_dd__wallet

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/wallet

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__wallet"
  }
}

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

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does valuable work by disclosing cost ($0.01 USDC on Base, eip155:8453), the x402 payment mechanism in params._meta, and a free preview tier — the kind of prerequisite agents otherwise miss. But it says nothing about what happens when payment is absent, what the returned score means, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and data sources, followed by pricing and transport details in compact sentences. The endpoint URL and price take real estate but are legitimately operational; nothing is redundant filler.

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 paid, multi-source aggregation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs, sources, and payment prerequisites but leaves the deliverable opaque — no indication of what a 'scored' result contains (risk flags, holder concentration, liquidity), and the wallet-vs-token-address ambiguity is unresolved.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond implying the chain should be Base or Ethereum, and it introduces the undocumented payment field via params._meta without describing its format.

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 operation and its data sources: DexScreener markets, GoPlus security/holders, and chain RPC, joined and scored. That is far more concrete than a restated name. However, it never explains the 'wallet' in the tool name (the address parameter is described as a token contract address, not a wallet), nor how this differs from sibling token_dd__check or token_dd__verify.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'One-call token due diligence for Base/Ethereum tokens' suggests use when you want an aggregated risk read in a single call, and the free '/preview teaser' hints at trying before paying. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative.

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