clawton-agentos
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
The two tools are cleanly separated by intent type: one evaluates x402 payments and the other evaluates Binance trades. Their names and descriptions make the correct choice obvious, with no functional overlap despite both being pre-flight checks.
Naming Consistency5/5Both tools follow the same check_<intent> convention: check_payment_intent and check_trade_intent. The pattern is predictable and makes the set easy to navigate.
Tool Count4/5Two tools is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but the server appears intentionally scoped to guardrail checks for two specific intent types. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundant surface.
Completeness4/5For the stated purpose of payment and trade safety checks, the server covers both target intents. It lacks any cap-management or status tools, but those may be intentionally external and agents can proceed with the checks provided.
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the evaluation criteria and that the cap is shared with trade intents, and 'before signing or sending' implies a preflight check. However, it does not state whether the call has side effects, what the result/verdict looks like, or how policy violations are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core behavior, the second provides actionable timing. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description omits important return semantics: what does the check return when the payment is allowed versus blocked? It also does not explicitly confirm non-mutation. The shared-cap note and timing are helpful, but an agent still cannot fully anticipate the tool's response or failure behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that usdValue is checked against the caps and resourceUrl identifies the x402 resource, but it adds no new format, unit, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it 'evaluates a proposed x402 protocol payment' against identified spend caps. It also notes the caps are shared with trade intents, which helps position it relative to the sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast the two tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit call timing: 'Call this BEFORE signing or sending any x402 payment.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly state when to use check_trade_intent instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the tool evaluates policy caps and is a pre-execution gate rather than the actual trading action. However, it does not disclose what happens when a cap is exceeded, whether the call has side effects, or what the returned result signifies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and immediately gives the critical usage instruction. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The input side is well covered by the schema and all three parameters are required. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what kind of result this tool returns or how an agent should interpret it when deciding whether to proceed with the trade.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond indicating the trade context, which matches the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's specific action — evaluating a proposed Binance trade against per-transaction and daily cumulative spend caps — and distinguishes it from executing the trade itself. The verb "Evaluates" plus the targeting of a specific resource makes the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: "Call this BEFORE calling any Binance MCP trading tool." It does not directly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the placement guidance is strong and leaves little doubt about the intended call order.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md: