Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
argon-x402-mcp-bridge

argon-x402-mcp-bridge

by Khanhtnq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

threat_intel_batch_lookup

Read-only

Batch-verify up to 50 SHA-256 indicators per call against Argon Threat Intel. Screen MCP configs, .cursorrules, and .vsix supply-chain artifacts for malicious reputation with privacy-preserving lookups.

Instructions

Privacy-preserving batch SHA-256 indicator reputation lookup for MCP configs, .cursorrules, and .vsix supply-chain artifacts. Includes 3 free calls/day/IP; thereafter $0.01 Base USDC via x402 (payTo: 0xcbEDbeCC127a32217075Ff40f16Ec804aa1E0533, asset: 0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913).

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": {
      "indicatorSha256": "<indicatorSha256>"
    },
    "name": "threat_intel_batch_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indicatorSha256YesUp to 50 hex-encoded SHA-256 indicator digests to verify against Argon Threat Intel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and external-query behavior are covered. The description adds genuinely new context: a privacy-preserving posture, a 3-calls/day/IP free tier, and an x402 per-call cost with payTo and asset addresses, which materially affects whether an agent should call it.

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?

Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the billing detail, and nothing is padded. The long hex payTo/asset strings add bulk, though they are functionally load-bearing for x402 payment.

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 one-parameter read-only tool the description covers purpose, scope, and cost adequately. However, with no output schema, it never indicates what a 'reputation' result looks like (verdict, score, match metadata), leaving a real gap for the caller.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the digest format and the 50-item cap. The description's 'batch SHA-256 indicator' phrasing reinforces but does not extend that meaning, matching the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb (batch lookup) and resource (SHA-256 indicator reputation), and narrows the domain to MCP configs, .cursorrules, and .vsix supply-chain artifacts. That is concrete enough to separate it from the Polymarket/Telegram/token-forensics siblings without naming them explicitly.

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 artifact list implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer a different lookup, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the payment model. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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