Skip to main content
Glama

Cheapest pre-send address check (lite, $0.01, never "safe")

check_address_risk_lite

Screen an EVM address on Base for risk before sending funds to unknown recipients; checks OFAC sanctions, scam/phishing lists, address-poisoning lookalikes, burn addresses and flagged deployers.

Instructions

Cheapest Verdix check ($0.01): screen an EVM address on Base before sending it USDC or other funds, when the recipient is unknown or new to you. It checks OFAC sanctions, scam/phishing lists, address-poisoning lookalikes, burn addresses, phishing tokens and flagged contract deployers; it skips address age and the caution-only contract checks. Returns Verdix's JSON unchanged: verdict (no_known_risk | caution | danger), risk_score, reasons, checked, limited_checks (always true), checks_performed, not_checked, full_check, as_of. This tool NEVER returns "safe": the clean answer is "no_known_risk", which only means the address is on none of these lists - it is not a safety verdict. 'danger' means do not send funds. 'caution' means confirm with the user first. If you need a "safe" verdict (e.g. before a large or irreversible transfer), call check_address_risk_quick ($0.02) instead or after this one. Optional chain: "base" (default, live data) or "ethereum" (Ethereum mainnet: OFAC, scam/phishing lists, burn addresses and address-poisoning lookalikes from a DAILY scan, not live; the answer adds data_through, the last complete UTC day, and coverage "daily, not live"; phishing-token and deployer checks are Base only, and there is no quick tier for Ethereum). PAID: calling this tool always costs $0.01 USDC on Base via x402 (also for chain=ethereum), paid from the wallet configured in this server (VERDIX_PRIVATE_KEY), and is refused up front if that is above VERDIX_MAX_PRICE_USD. A 503 answer (data unavailable, or Ethereum data out of date) is not charged.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase (default, live data) or ethereum (Ethereum mainnet, daily scan: the answer has data_through and coverage "daily, not live"). Still paid $0.01 in USDC on Base.base
addressYesThe EVM address to check (the recipient, contract or counterparty)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": "base",
      +  "description": "base (default, live data) or ethereum (Ethereum mainnet, daily scan: the answer has data_through and coverage \"daily, not live\"). Still paid $0.01 in USDC on Base.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "base",
      +    "ethereum"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Addedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that every call costs $0.01 USDC via x402 from VERDIX_PRIVATE_KEY, that calls above VERDIX_MAX_PRICE_USD are refused up front, that 503 responses are not charged, and that the tool never returns 'safe'. It also spells out the semantic meaning of each verdict (danger = do not send, caution = confirm first), which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, cost, and scope in the first sentence, and the verdict-SLA caveat lands before the alternative-tool routing. The chain paragraph is dense and slightly overstuffed, but each clause carries operational meaning.

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 paid, non-idempotent, open-world tool with no output schema, the description enumerates every returned field, the payment and refusal behavior, the non-charged failure case, and the per-chain coverage differences. An agent has everything needed to decide and call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that chain=ethereum is a daily rather than live scan, returns data_through and coverage, lacks phishing-token and deployer checks, and still bills in USDC on Base. It adds real consequences to the enum choice rather than restating it.

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 ('screen an EVM address on Base') plus the exact risk categories checked and skipped, which distinguishes it from check_address_risk_deep/standard and is reinforced by the explicit sibling reference to check_address_risk_quick.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('before sending it USDC or other funds, when the recipient is unknown or new to you') and names the alternative ('If you need a "safe" verdict ... call check_address_risk_quick ($0.02) instead or after this one'), including the cost tradeoff that selects between them.

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