Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Anomaly Tracker MCP

Anomaly Tracker MCP

by forgemeshlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mempool_anomaly

Detect mempool anomalies like gas spikes, MEV signals, and fee wars. Get a story label and anomaly score every five seconds via real-time polling.

Instructions

Real-time mempool anomaly score — detects gas spikes, MEV signals, pending whale swaps, contract deploy bursts, and priority fee wars. Designed for 5-second polling. Returns a story label (e.g. 'MEV Attack', 'Gas Surge', 'Priority Fee War') and anomaly score. Costs $0.01 USDC on Base mainnet.

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": "mempool_anomaly"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoBlockchain (default: ethereum). Only Ethereum and Base have RPC mempool access.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses cost ($0.01 USDC on Base mainnet) and return structure (story label, anomaly score). Lacks details on rate limits or auth, but overall transparent for a real-time monitoring tool.

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?

Single, focused paragraph with front-loaded key information (purpose, polling, cost, output). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given simple schema (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), description covers core aspects: what it detects, polling suggestion, cost, output. Could mention side effects or read-only nature, but adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Only one parameter 'chain' with enum and full schema coverage. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, just notes Ethereum and Base have RPC access. 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?

Description explicitly lists multiple specific anomaly types (gas spikes, MEV signals, etc.) and provides a clear verb+resource: 'detects mempool anomaly score'. Distinguishes from siblings like token_scan or defi_scan.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly advises 'Designed for 5-second polling', giving strong context on polling frequency. Does not mention when to avoid or suggest alternatives, but the recommendation is clear and actionable.

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