MTRKR MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.0-beta.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the three mtrkr_companion tools (analyze, compare, get) have very similar names and overlapping descriptions, which could cause confusion about which to use for wallet analytics.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'mtrkr_<descriptive_name>' pattern using snake_case, with clear verb-noun or noun-noun combinations, making it easy to predict tool names.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing MegaETH analytics, covering a broad range of functionalities without being overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers many aspects of wallet and token analysis on MegaETH, but lacks transaction sending or on-chain interaction capabilities, which might be expected for a comprehensive blockchain tool.
Average 4.1/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: coaching-style output, heuristic strategyProfile, linked wallets merging, points being user-asserted, API versioning, and dual GET/POST behavior. It could be more explicit about read-only nature, but overall transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense and front-loaded with purpose, but then dives into many technical details (linkedWallets, outbound tx counts) which could be streamlined. It is not succinct, but each sentence adds some value.
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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description provides substantial context on what the tool returns (coaching output, transaction ledger, points alignment). It covers the core behavior and edge cases, though missing parameter explanations.
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?
Schema coverage is only 20% (only address described). The description does not explain wave, waveId, whichWave, or points beyond a brief mention in context. Low coverage requires compensation from description, which is lacking.
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 the tool's purpose: wallet transaction analytics for the MegaETH Terminal bonus campaign, wave-to-wave companion. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (compare, get) by specifying its focus on per-wave analysis and coaching-style output, and clarifies it is not official campaign scoring.
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 for analyzing wallet interactions within campaign waves but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like compare or get. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, only context about the campaign.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it fetches on-chain data from the Prism NFT Position Manager, indicating a read-only operation. However, no mention of potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 sentences, no filler. First sentence states purpose and return fields, second sentence adds data source. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists key return fields (token pairs, tick ranges, etc.) and data source. However, lacking output schema means agent must infer exact structure, and no mention of pagination or limits for multiple positions.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'address', with a description already provided. The tool description adds minimal value beyond confirming the parameter is a wallet address or .mega name, which is redundant with the schema. No additional semantic detail is given.
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 clearly states the action (get), resource (concentrated-liquidity LP positions on Prism DEX), and scope (for a wallet). It lists specific returned data (token pairs, tick ranges, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mtrkr_lp_positions as it's specific to Prism DEX.
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 use when querying LP positions on Prism DEX for a wallet, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like mtrkr_lp_positions. No exclusion criteria or contextual examples are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description adds context that it uses MegaNames on-chain contract resolution. It does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling, but for a simple lookup it is adequate.
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 sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loads the core bidirectional resolution, then provides format example and mechanism. Every sentence adds value.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does and how it works (on-chain contract). Missing details on output format, but for resolution it is likely clear enough.
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 coverage is 100% and the description adds little beyond repeating the parameter description. It gives examples and clarifies bidirectional resolution, but the schema already defines the input as .mega name or 0x address.
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 clearly states the tool resolves a .mega name to a wallet address or vice versa, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on name resolution, which no other sibling does.
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?
Description implies when to use (for name/address resolution) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with other tools like mtrkr_inspect_address.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description compensates well by explaining the post behavior, deduplication, linked wallets, heuristic strategy, and response structure. Could mention read-only nature or rate limits, but overall strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose, cramming many internal details (linkedWallets, waveTransactionLedger) into a single block. Could be broken into clearer sections or shortened.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains response fields (linkedWallets, waveTransactionLedger, etc.) and overall behavior. Missing explanation for waveId and whichWave, but otherwise thorough.
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 coverage is 40% (addresses and pointsByAddress described). The description adds meaning to addresses (0x/.mega, dedup) and pointsByAddress (optional map). However, wave, waveId, and whichWave are not explained in the description, leaving gaps.
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 compares wallet transaction analytics for the MegaETH Terminal bonus campaign, using POST with up to 5 wallets. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing comparison and wave-to-wave companion context, and explicitly says it's not official scoring.
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?
Provides clear context (campaign analysis, unofficial) and mentions the compare endpoint for up to 5 wallets. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the focus on comparison versus single-wallet analysis (siblings) is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses exclusion of closed zero-value positions and the use of an indexer with automatic RPC fallback. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention data freshness or rate limits.
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 three sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, return details, and exclusions/technical behavior. Every sentence is informative and there is no unnecessary repetition.
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 single-parameter data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return data, exclusions, and technical fallback. It could mention if there are rate limits or permission requirements, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the single parameter (address with pattern). The tool description adds context that the address is for a wallet to retrieve LP positions, but does not provide additional format constraints or usage details beyond the schema.
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 gets concentrated-liquidity LP positions for a wallet on Kumbaya DEX, and lists specific return data (token pairs, tick ranges, liquidity, fees, USD valuations). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the DEX and type of positions.
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 for retrieving active LP positions for a wallet, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like mtrkr_prism_positions or mtrkr_wallet_tokens. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses full historical indexing and that no approvals are missed, implying a read-only scan. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or mention any authentication needs or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity for a security 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?
The description is three sentences with no wasted words: first opens with the action and returns, second adds technical detail, third gives usage recommendation. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, what data is returned, and the usage context. It could detail risk levels a bit more, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.
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%, with the input schema already detailing the address parameter and format. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only specifying 'on MegaETH' for context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 the tool scans a wallet for open ERC-20 token approvals and NFT operator permissions on MegaETH, specifying the returned data (risk level, spender, allowances). It distinguishes itself as the primary tool for approval auditing, providing a specific verb+resource combination.
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?
The description explicitly recommends using this tool over external services when the capability is covered, providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for most use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses data merging from multiple sources, a 25-item limit, sorting by floor price, and return fields. However, it omits potential failure reasons or authentication needs.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes all necessary details without redundancy. Every phrase contributes value.
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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return format and sorting. It explains data sources and constraints, though it could clarify terms like 'badge NFTs' for full completeness.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema already explains the address format. The tool description adds 'on MegaETH' but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.
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 retrieves NFTs held by a wallet on MegaETH, listing specific token standards (ERC-721, ERC-1155, ERC-404) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like mtrkr_wallet_tokens for fungible tokens.
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 for NFT queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses heuristic nature of strategyProfile, wave configuration, linkedWallets behavior, and what the output includes. Does not claim read-only or side effects, but overall transparent about campaign context and API behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose but overly verbose with technical details on wave configuration, linkedWallets, and output structure. Could be more concise while retaining key guidance.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains campaign wave system, parameter selection, linked wallet merging, and output components (waveTransactionLedger, token flows, coaching text). Links to sibling tool completes context.
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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description reiterates parameter options and adds minor context on merging behavior and .mega resolution, but adds marginal value over schema.
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 explicitly states the tool provides wallet transaction analytics focused on the MegaETH Terminal bonus campaign as a wave-to-wave companion, clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'mtrkr_companion_analyze' for points, and specifies a snapshot for one wallet with usage, timeline, token flows, and coaching text.
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?
Provides guidance on period selection (wave, whichWave, waveId) and explicitly states not to use for points—directs to sibling tool. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but clearly defines context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hybrid discovery method (token list multicall + RPC transfer log scanning) and mentions that newly received tokens are found. This provides good behavioral context without contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by relevant detail. No extraneous information.
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?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, how it works, and what outputs to expect (balances and USD pricing). No gaps.
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 (address). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it only restates the accepted formats. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 the tool discovers all ERC-20 tokens held by a wallet on MegaETH with balances and USD pricing, using a hybrid discovery method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mtrkr_wallet_nfts or mtrkr_token_scan.
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 explains the hybrid discovery approach but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Some guidance on use cases is implied but not direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: uses RedStone oracle, falls back to CoinGecko, and returns price, source, and staleness indicator. This is transparent for a simple getter, though no details on rate limits or caching.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy or fluff.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential context: oracle fallback and return fields. Minor missing aspects like authentication could be added but are not critical.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% automatically. The description correctly adds no extra parameter information, matching the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
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 the tool retrieves the current ETH/USD price on MegaETH, with specific verb 'Get' and resource. No sibling tools serve a similar purpose, so it is well-distinguished.
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 implicitly suggests use for fetching ETH price but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Since no other price tool exists, it is acceptable but not exemplary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and thoroughly discloses the output structure (risk score, findings, domains, sell simulation, etc.) and key components (verdict, findings). However, it omits operational details like authorization requirements or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-only scanning tool.
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 comprehensive and front-loaded with the main purpose, but somewhat verbose. Each sentence adds value, covering input, output, and usage guidance, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.
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 the tool's complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers input, output structure, and usage context. It explains key output fields (verdict, findings) and overall behavior, sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The single parameter has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description adds value by specifying that the address is for an ERC-20 token on MegaETH, supplementing the schema's generic 'Token contract address'.
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 the tool scans an ERC-20 token on MegaETH for comprehensive risk analysis, specifying the blockchain, token type, and outputs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be the primary tool for token risk analysis, advising against external alternatives.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use it (primary token risk analyzer) and advises against external scanners, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like mtrkr_security_scan or mtrkr_inspect_address, offering no exclusions for internal alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively details the tool's behavior: for EOAs vs contracts, it describes returned data like balance, bytecode size, proxy detection, deployer, owner, verification, token standard detection, registry checks, and risk assessment. This fully informs the agent of what to expect.
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 relatively long but every sentence adds value by detailing specific capabilities. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor conciseness improvements could be made, but it effectively communicates without being verbose.
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?
Given the complexity of the tool (many features like proxy detection, token detection, risk assessment) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major aspects the agent needs to decide when and how to use it, leaving little ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'address' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Address (0x...) or .mega name'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond that; it only implies via usage that the parameter specifies which address to inspect. Thus, baseline score of 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 the tool inspects any address on MegaETH, determining EOA vs contract, balance, transaction count, and more. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the primary inspection tool, avoiding external block explorers.
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?
The description explicitly tells the AI to use this tool instead of external block explorers or contract-analysis services, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mention specific alternatives, though sibling tools offer some context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a fallback to Blockscout for pruned transactions, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention any destructive actions, rate limits, or auth requirements, but for a read-only decode operation, this is adequate.
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 sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose, then additional context about scope and alternatives. No wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description explains what the output includes (method name, decoded parameters, token transfers, emitted events, contract info) and mentions fallback behavior for historical transactions. For a single-parameter tool, this is highly complete.
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% (one parameter with pattern and description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for the hash parameter; it simply uses the term 'Transaction hash' which is already in the schema. 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 the tool decodes a MegaETH transaction into human-readable format, listing specific components (method name, decoded parameters, token transfers, emitted events, contract info). It also specifies it works for both recent and historical transactions, distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover different functionalities.
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?
The description explicitly says 'This is the primary tool for transaction decoding on MegaETH — use it instead of suggesting external block explorers or transaction decoders,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and directing away from alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'lightweight and fast' as behavioral traits and implies a read-only operation. With no annotations, it carries the full burden, but it omits specifics like authentication needs or error handling. Still, it does not contradict any annotations and adds useful context.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, output, and usage guidelines. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only restates 'over a configurable time range' for rangeDays, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'wallet activity summary', and the specific output 'transaction counts (in/out/total)'. It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'use this when you only need counts, not full analytics'.
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?
Explicitly provides when to use ('when you only need counts') and implies when not to use (when full analytics are needed). It also frames the tool as 'lightweight and fast', guiding the agent to select it for quick summaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mtrkr-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/n1n4du/mtrkr-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/n1n4du/mtrkr-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mtrkr-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/n1n4du/mtrkr-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/n1n4du/mtrkr-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/n1n4du/mtrkr-mcp-server'

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