Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
crypto-link-check

crypto-link-check

by devx-agent
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

How to buy the full hosted link check

full_report_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the endpoint, price, and payment method for the optional paid hosted crypto link check before requesting deeper domain, DNS, redirect, and page-scan evidence.

Instructions

Returns the endpoint, price and payment method of the optional paid hosted check. It does not call the API and does not pay or sign anything. The paid check covers what check_crypto_link cannot see offline: domain registration age (RDAP), DNS resolution, the redirect chain, and one fetch of the page scanned for seed-phrase prompts and token-approval drainer code. It accepts 1-10 URLs per call for 0.005 USDC on Base via x402. Use it when check_crypto_link returns no_red_flags or caution for a link that someone is about to trust with a wallet and you want more evidence. If check_crypto_link already says dangerous or official, you usually do not need it. Returns: method, url_template, price_usdc, network, asset, protocol, max_urls, settles and docs.

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": "full_report_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docsYes
assetYes
methodYes
networkYes
settlesYes
max_urlsYes
protocolYes
price_usdcYes
url_templateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "asset": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "docs": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "max_urls": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "method": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "network": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "price_usdc": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "protocol": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "settles": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url_template": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "method",
+    "url_template",
+    "price_usdc",
+    "network",
+    "asset",
+    "protocol",
+    "max_urls",
+    "settles",
+    "docs"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and adds the crucial caveat that it does not call the API and does not pay or sign anything, plus cost (0.005 USDC), network (Base via x402) and batch limits (1-10 URLs). These are exactly the behavioral facts annotations cannot convey.

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?

Well front-loaded: capability, then non-actions, then coverage, then when/when-not. The closing 'Returns: method, url_template, price_usdc...' sentence duplicates the existing output schema and could be dropped.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the discovery-to-purchase flow, cost, network and coverage scope — everything an agent needs to decide to route here. Nothing material is missing for a zero-parameter info tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is high; the description adds the relevant constraint of 1-10 URLs per call and the pricing model, which are semantic context for the downstream paid call rather than this tool's schema. No parameter confusion is possible.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — returns the endpoint, price and payment method of the optional paid hosted check — and explicitly contrasts with check_crypto_link by naming what only the paid check can see (RDAP age, DNS, redirects, drainer scan). An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the exact trigger ('when check_crypto_link returns no_red_flags or caution for a link someone is about to trust with a wallet') and an explicit exclusion ('if check_crypto_link already says dangerous or official, you usually do not need it'). Both branches are covered.

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