automaton

walletprofile__hygiene

Live ERC-20 allowance hygiene for a Base address: which tokens are approved, to whom, and which approvals are unlimited or stale. 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/walletprofile/hygiene

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": "walletprofile__hygiene"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Base address, 0x + 40 hex.
`range_blocks`	No	How many recent blocks to scan (default 20000, max 200000).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / address / description
```
Added value: +"Base address, 0x + 40 hex."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / range_blocks / description
```
Added value: +"How many recent blocks to scan (default 20000, max 200000)."
```
- changedInput schema / properties / range_blocks / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "address"
+]
```
AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses paid x402 access at $0.01 USDC on Base via params._meta, plus the GET method and live-data nature. It does not state rate limits, error behavior, or explicitly call the operation read-only, though GET and 'hygiene' strongly imply it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by clearly separated price/payment and HTTP endpoint details. There is no redundant filler for a two-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, read-only endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, the categories of allowance findings, cost, payment mechanics, and transport. It omits some operational details such as rate limits and exact response shape, but provides enough to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so address and range_blocks are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about what allowance data is returned but does not add meaning beyond the schema for either parameter.

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 it reports live ERC-20 allowance hygiene for a Base address, including approved tokens, spenders, and unlimited or stale approvals. That is a clear scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close sibling allowance tools such as basedue__allowance or txpreflight__allowance.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer that this is for reviewing allowance risk. Alternative tools are not named, so selection against siblings is left to inference.

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

All automaton tools Inspect

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

Need Help?