Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BlazePhoenix MCP Server

BlazePhoenix MCP Server

by blazephoenixxyz-crypto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Check staking solvency

check_solvency
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read live staking solvency from the chain, returning isSolvent() status and decoded solvency() struct; defaults to Base, with optional chain selection.

Instructions

Live staking solvency read from the chain: isSolvent() and the decoded solvency() struct. Defaults to Base.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_solvency"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase | eth | optimism | arbitrum | robinhood, or a numeric chain id. Optional when your RPC has a single chain.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds that the read is live from chain and returns both a boolean and a decoded struct, but omits failure behavior, RPC prerequisites, and whether results are cached.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the method-name jargon could read as terse for an agent unfamiliar with the contract.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient but leaves the shape of the decoded solvency() struct and any error/latency behavior unstated.

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 chain parameter's accepted values and optionality are already documented. The description adds only the default value ('Base'), which the schema does not state, a small but genuine increment over the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a live on-chain solvency read, naming the contract methods (isSolvent() and solvency()) it surfaces. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling swap/quote/deployment tools, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The only implicit context is that it checks a staking position's solvency, and 'Defaults to Base' merely states a default rather than a usage condition.

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