Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_risk_score

Compute a composite risk score for a crypto entity by evaluating regulatory flags, liquidity tier, team risk, and audit status. Returns a single numeric value between 0 and 1.

Instructions

Composite risk score: regulatory flags + liquidity tier + team risk + audit status. Starter tier. Single-number risk (0-1).

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": {
      "entity_slug": "<entity_slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_risk_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_slugYesEntity slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It partially discloses behavior by listing components and output range (0-1), but does not mention side effects, data freshness, or error handling.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: components of the score and output format. It is mostly complete, though it lacks details on data sources or update frequency.

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 100% for the single parameter 'entity_slug'. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only hinting that it relates to an entity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it computes a composite risk score from specified components (regulatory flags, liquidity tier, team risk, audit status) and outputs a single number between 0 and 1. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_rugpull_risk or get_regulatory_status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The phrase 'Starter tier' implies a basic version but lacks clarity on usage context or when to prefer other risk tools.

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