Full pre-trade analysis for an Arc / RadarDEX token before buying. Returns GO / CAUTION / AVOID with creator observed launch history, LP lock, liquidity snapshot, and top-holder concentration. Volume and wash fields are null in v1. RadarDEX-only coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ERC-20 token address on Arc (0x…) | |
| includeHolders | No | Include Arcscan holder concentration. Default true. | |
| include_holders | No | Alias of includeHolders. |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states the output verdict, the key analysis components, the v1 null fields, and the RadarDEX-only coverage. It does not address potential side effects or permissions, but as a read-only analysis tool the disclosed limitations are meaningful and useful.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and return verdict, followed by efficient notes on scope and limitations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.
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?
Given the schema covers all parameters and this is a simple analysis tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains return value, key fields, limitations, and scope. The main gap is not addressing the relationship to preape_check, but that is a usage-guidance nuance rather than a blocking completeness issue.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context by mentioning analysis components like top-holder concentration and liquidity, which loosely connect to includeHolders, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it performs 'Full pre-trade analysis for an Arc / RadarDEX token before buying' and returns a clear verdict (GO / CAUTION / AVOID). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool preape_check, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 clearly indicates when to use it ('before buying') and notes RadarDEX-only coverage as a scope limitation. However, it never mentions the sibling tool preape_check or explains when to choose this tool over that alternative, leaving the usage guidance incomplete.
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.
preape_analyze and preape_check both evaluate the same token and return the same GO/CAUTION/AVOID verdict, so they are easy to confuse. The 'quick vs full' distinction and 'Use this first' hint help, but an agent still has to read carefully to choose correctly.
Both tools follow the same preape_ + verb pattern, giving the server a predictable naming structure. There are no mixed conventions or inconsistent verb styles.
Two tools is a minimal surface, but it maps cleanly to quick and full pre-trade risk checks for a narrow domain. It feels slightly thin, yet not unreasonable for the stated purpose.
The full analysis covers creator history, LP lock, liquidity, and top-holder concentration, while the quick check provides a fast red-flag path. Notable gaps like null volume/wash fields and incomplete Arc coverage exist, but the core pre-trade workflow is represented.