Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

by stefantsezarov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Compare two addresses character by character

compare_addresses
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare a trusted address against the one you are about to send to, reporting all differing positions and flagging look-alikes to prevent address poisoning.

Instructions

Catch address poisoning: compare the address you meant (from a trusted source) with the one you are about to send to. Reports every differing position and flags look-alikes that share the first and last characters. Runs locally.

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": {
      "expected": "<expected>",
      "actual": "<actual>"
    },
    "name": "compare_addresses"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actualYesThe address you are about to use.
expectedYesThe address from the trusted source.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: 'Runs locally' reinforces the no-network posture, and it discloses output behavior (reports every differing position, flags look-alikes sharing first/last characters).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the threat ('Catch address poisoning') followed by the action and the local-execution note. No filler; every clause carries 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?

For a two-string, no-output-schema tool, the description covers when to use it, what it returns in prose (differing positions plus look-alike flag), and the local-execution constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 two clearly documented params ('actual' = address about to use, 'expected' = from trusted source). The description restates that ordering but adds no format, encoding, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('compare the address you meant with the one you are about to send to') and frames the threat model ('catch address poisoning'). A comparison tool is inherently distinct from the sibling scan_address/scan_message single-artifact scanners, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: before sending, compare the intended address from a trusted source against the destination. It implies the when-to-use well, but never names an alternative tool (e.g., scan_address) or an exclusion, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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