Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Lucent

Lucent

by beepboop2025
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_descriptor

Review an ERC-7730 Clear Signing descriptor during authoring. Combines audit, comprehension, and danger checks to identify display defects, explain consequences, and flag structural risks, returning a verdict and risk tier.

Instructions

PURPOSE: Authoring-time review of an ERC-7730 Clear Signing descriptor. Combines three lenses — audit (does the wallet screen show the right fields, grade A-F), comprehension (a plain-language consequence sentence + risk tier per function), and danger (structural attack primitives). Returns {verdict: {gate, reason}, audit, comprehension, danger}. GUIDELINES: Use this while writing or reviewing a descriptor. Never use it to approve a pending transaction because it does not bind chain, address, calldata, or value; use preflight_transaction for every pending call. LIMITATIONS: Static full-descriptor analysis with transaction_bound=false. It does NOT simulate the transaction against live chain state, detect economic exploits (price manipulation, MEV), or judge whether the counterparty is honest. It reports authoring defects; its verdict is not a pending-call decision. EXAMPLE: check_descriptor({"descriptor": {"context": {...}, "display": {"formats": {...}}}}) -> {"verdict": {"gate": "block", "reason": "1 CRITICAL danger primitive…"}, …}

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": {
      "descriptor": "<descriptor>"
    },
    "name": "check_descriptor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptorYesThe full ERC-7730 descriptor JSON, inline: an object with context.contract.abi and display.formats.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / descriptor / description
      Previous value: -"The full ERC-7730 descriptor JSON, inline: an object with context.contract (abi or deployments) and display.formats."New value: +"The full ERC-7730 descriptor JSON, inline: an object with context.contract.abi and display.formats."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses limitations: static analysis, no simulation against live chain state, no economic exploit detection, and explicitly states its verdict is not a pending-call decision. This is rich and honest transparency.

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?

The description is structured into PURPOSE, GUIDELINES, LIMITATIONS, and EXAMPLE sections. Each segment is purposeful and front-loaded; nothing is redundant or wasteful, making it highly concise for its complexity.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage boundaries, limitations, and example invocation. It leaves no critical gap for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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% and the descriptor parameter is already documented. The description adds an example call but largely reaffirms the schema's structure. Baseline 3 applies because the description does not significantly augment parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Authoring-time review') and names the resource (ERC-7730 Clear Signing descriptor). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on descriptor analysis rather than transaction preflight or contract scanning.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'Use this while writing or reviewing a descriptor' and 'Never use it to approve a pending transaction... use preflight_transaction' provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, directly naming the alternative tool.

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