agentradar

add_scam_wallet

Report malicious wallet addresses to the AgentRadar scam database by specifying chain, severity, source, and optional notes. Requires operator key.

Instructions

Report a malicious wallet address to the AgentRadar scam database. Requires operator key. Include chain, severity level, source of intel, and optional notes.

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>",
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "severity": "<severity>",
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "add_scam_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes
`chain`	Yes
`severity`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`notes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3May 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the operator key requirement, but omits details on side effects, success/failure behavior, or rate limits. This is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second lists key requirements. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't describe the output, error conditions, or any validation behavior, leaving the agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'Include chain, severity level, source of intel, and optional notes', which adds some meaning to the parameters beyond their names. However, it does not explain all parameters fully (e.g., format of severity) or provide values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Report') and the resource ('AgentRadar scam database'), with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like 'check_scam' which would be for querying.

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?

The description mentions 'Requires operator key', which indicates a prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'check_scam' or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server