Skip to main content
Glama
1tylermitchell

Sairen

by 1tylermitchell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

challenge_risk_tool

Classify bot risk and challenge signals for agent traffic, and apply safe anti-abuse remediation to protect scraping pipelines from abuse.

Instructions

    [Cost: $0.0030 USDC on Base & Solana] Classify bot risk, challenge signals, and safe anti-abuse remediation for agent traffic and scraping pipelines.
    Sub-50ms deterministic machine execution.

    Args:
        input_data: Target payload or query string.
        parameters: Optional dictionary or JSON string of execution arguments.
        payment_signature: Optional x402 Base USDC transaction hash (defaults to developer mock key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYes
parametersNo
payment_signatureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses cost, sub-50ms deterministic execution, and mentions 'safe anti-abuse remediation,' but it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limits. It also notes that payment_signature defaults to a developer mock key, which is useful. This is partial disclosure, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is moderately concise, with a clear purpose statement and a structured argument list. It includes useful extras like cost and speed, which are not redundant. The front-loading of purpose is good. It is not overly verbose, so a 4.

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?

The description provides purpose, parameters, cost, and performance, but lacks any mention of the output format (no output schema), side effects, or usage boundaries versus alternatives. For a classification tool with no annotations, this is incomplete for an agent to fully understand invocation consequences. A 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description explains each parameter: input_data as a target payload or query string, parameters as an optional dictionary or JSON string, and payment_signature as an optional USDC transaction hash with a default. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is essential and largely compensates. However, it does not elaborate on what execution arguments the parameters dict should contain, so a 4 is given.

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 clearly states it classifies bot risk, challenge signals, and safe anti-abuse remediation for agent traffic and scraping pipelines. This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like classify_url or check_address_risk by focusing on bot risk. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description indicates the intended context (agent traffic and scraping pipelines) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling classification tools. There are no exclusions or alternative names mentioned. Given the large sibling set, this is a notable gap, so a 2 is warranted.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools