Validated-edge score: reports ONLY signals that passed our locked-holdout validation (strong-start mcap >=3x -> graduation 0.8%->33%, low reserve -> OR 0.35, fast-graduation rug risk). Descriptive base-rate shift, not a price prediction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only validated signals are reported, that the output is descriptive rather than predictive, and it gives concrete examples of the validation thresholds. This is strong behavioral context, though some terms like 'OR 0.35' are left unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the most important constraint: it reports ONLY validated signals. The second sentence provides a crucial limitation about not being a price prediction. The parenthetical thresholds add specificity but are dense and could be easier to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable sense of scope and limitations but omits return shape, interpretation, and error behavior. It is adequate for choosing the tool, but an agent still lacks detail on what the actual score output looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and only says the parameter is a string named 'mint'. The description adds contextual meaning by connecting the mint to mcap, reserve, and graduation signals, but it never explicitly defines the expected input format or what a valid mint looks like. It partially compensates for the gap but does not fully document the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports signals that passed locked-holdout validation for a given mint, which is specific and distinct from a generic scoring tool. It also clarifies it is a descriptive base-rate shift, not a price prediction, which helps differentiate it from prediction-like tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool should be used when a validated, non-predictive base-rate score is needed, and it warns against treating it as a price prediction. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as check_mint or verify_claim, so usage guidance is mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct actions (build, check, score, verify, track), and the detailed descriptions separate chains and purposes. The main ambiguity is between check_robinhood and check_robinhood_honeypot, which both assess Robinhood Chain tokens but via different methods.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern with a consistent 'check_' family for safety tools. Minor deviations like recent_events, guard_pricing, and track_record break the pattern but are still readable.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and covers safety checks, signal intelligence, execution, pricing, and verification without feeling padded. Each tool has a distinct role in the guarded-trading workflow.
The surface covers the core non-custodial trading/intelligence loop: assess, score, copy, build, pay, and verify claims. Minor gaps exist around historical signal filtering or arbitrary-wallet deep dives, but they are workarounds rather than dead ends.