Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-red-web-utils

mcp-red-web-utils

by hsharmanov02
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

deployer_score

Retrieve a Base deployer's reputation score from a unique dataset to assess deployer credibility before interacting with tokens or contracts.

Instructions

Base deployer reputation score (unique dataset) (paid per call, USDC on Base via x402)

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "deployer_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does add meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that each call is paid in USDC on Base via x402. It still omits permissions, rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, and what the score represents or how it is returned.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with the core resource front-loaded and the payment caveat appended in parentheses. There is little waste, though it could be slightly clearer as a complete verb-led statement.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains payment but leaves out address semantics, return value meaning, and usage context that an agent would need.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has one required parameter (`address`) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions the parameter, its expected format, or that it should be a deployer address on Base. The word `deployer` provides only an implicit hint, leaving the agent to infer the rest.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as a Base deployer reputation score and adds that it uses a unique dataset. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement and does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling `deployer` tool.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `deployer`, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the paid-call notice. The payment note implies a cost-aware use case but does not route the agent between 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