Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Privacy-Scan

Privacy-Scan

by Nymrasi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Nymra Privacy Scan

scan_wallet
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan an EVM wallet or ENS name to get a 0–100 privacy score, point-costing findings with evidence, likely linked wallets, and chains read—without seed phrases, private keys, or signatures.

Instructions

Scan an EVM wallet and get its Nymra Privacy Score from 0 to 100: every finding that costs points, with the evidence behind it, the wallets it is likely linked to, and which chains were read. Give a 0x address or an ENS name. The scan runs on this computer and reads public block explorers and nodes directly; it only reads, and never needs a seed phrase, a private key or a signature. A scan takes about 20 seconds to 2 minutes. A link between wallets is a likelihood with a confidence, never proof of who owns a wallet.

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": {
      "wallet": "<wallet>"
    },
    "name": "scan_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletYesOne EVM wallet: a 0x address with 40 hex characters, or an ENS name such as vitalik.eth.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the scan executes locally, reads public explorers and nodes directly, requires no seed phrase, private key, or signature, and takes roughly 20 seconds to 2 minutes. It also qualifies that wallet links are likelihoods with confidence, not proof of ownership, which is important interpretive context.

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 output content and input format are front-loaded, followed by operational details and a caveat. It is slightly long and partly restates the read-only nature already covered by annotations, but every sentence carries useful meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description still explains the returned score, per-finding evidence, linked wallets, and chains read. Combined with runtime, privacy constraints, and the ownership-likelihood caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 the wallet parameter's 0x/ENS format is already fully documented. The description reinforces that exactly one EVM wallet is accepted but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Scan an EVM wallet') plus the concrete output (Nymra Privacy Score 0-100 with findings, evidence, linked wallets, chains read). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling fix_plan.

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?

It gives the input condition ('Give a 0x address or an ENS name') and implied usage context, but never states when to prefer this over the sibling fix_plan or when a scan is inappropriate. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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