Skip to main content
Glama

wot_anomalies

Detect anomalous network behavior in Nostr pubkeys by identifying ghost followers, asymmetric relationships, cluster patterns, and suspicious activity.

Instructions

Detect anomalous patterns in a Nostr pubkey's network behavior. Checks for ghost followers, asymmetric relationships, cluster patterns, and suspicious activity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pubkeyYesNostr public key in hex format
payment_hashNoPayment hash if free tier exhausted

Implementation Reference

  • The "wot_anomalies" tool is registered here, defining the schema and the async handler which calls the `wotGet` helper.
      "wot_anomalies",
      "Detect anomalous patterns in a Nostr pubkey's network behavior. Checks for ghost followers, asymmetric relationships, cluster patterns, and suspicious activity.",
      {
        pubkey: z.string().describe("Nostr public key in hex format"),
        payment_hash: z.string().optional().describe("Payment hash if free tier exhausted"),
      },
      async ({ pubkey, payment_hash }) => {
        const data = await wotGet("/anomalies", { pubkey }, payment_hash);
        return textResult(formatL402(data));
      }
    );
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It effectively lists the specific anomaly types detected (ghost followers, asymmetric relationships, cluster patterns), but omits operational context like the payment/freemium model (hinted at by the payment_hash parameter), rate limits, read-only status, or return value structure.

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?

Two well-constructed sentences with zero redundancy. The first establishes the core purpose, the second enumerates specific detection capabilities. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's functional scope but leaves operational gaps. Notably, it fails to explain the payment/freemium implications suggested by the payment_hash parameter, nor does it describe expected return formats or how to interpret anomaly findings.

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%, documenting both the pubkey format and payment_hash purpose. The description adds no parameter-specific context, meeting the baseline expectation that high-coverage schema reduces the description's burden for this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') with a clear resource ('Nostr pubkey's network behavior') and distinguishes itself from sibling WOT tools by focusing specifically on 'anomalous patterns' rather than general scoring, trust paths, or sybil checks. The enumerated checks (ghost followers, asymmetric relationships, cluster patterns) provide concrete scope definition.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through its specific scope (anomaly detection), but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like wot_sybil_check, wot_follow_quality, or wot_network_health. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/joelklabo/maximumsats-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server