Skip to main content
Glama

Whether a token can be sold again

singularityagent__inspect_exit
Read-only

Before buying a Solana token, find out what could stop you selling it. Names the specific mechanisms rather than scoring the token: a transfer hook (issuer code runs on every transfer, including your sale, and can refuse it), a permanent delegate (an address can move the token out of your wallet without you signing), a live freeze authority (your token account can be frozen, leaving a balance you own and cannot sell), a default-frozen account state, a non-transferable mint, transfer fees, and supply concentrated in one non-pool account. Each entry says who holds the power. canExit is false when at least one mechanism can block a sale or seize the balance. canExit: true does not mean safe to buy — this reads the mint account and the largest holders, not the market, so it says nothing about whether liquidity is locked, how deep the pool is, or what the token is worth. Read completeness, which always says what was not covered. This is a read: it builds nothing, signs nothing, and routes no trade.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYesMint address, or an address-book alias for one.
chainNoSolana chain id or alias. Defaults to "solana".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
      +  "chain": {
      +    "description": "Solana chain id or alias. Defaults to \"solana\".",
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "mint": {
      +    "description": "Mint address, or an address-book alias for one.",
      +    "type": "string"
      +  }
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "mint"
      +]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses far more than the annotations require: it explicitly states 'This is a read: it builds nothing, signs nothing, and routes no trade,' reinforcing readOnlyHint. It also warns about interpretation ('canExit: true does not mean safe to buy'), describes the input source (mint account and largest holders), and instructs reading the completeness field, which aligns with openWorldHint. No contradictions with annotations.

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 longer than typical but every sentence carries substantive information: it lists mechanisms, explains canExit semantics, states the tool's limits, and reiterates its read-only nature. It is front-loaded with the purpose and ends with a clear safety note. No filler or redundancy, though more detail exists than strictly minimal.

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 no output schema, the description must explain what the agent can expect. It covers the meaning of canExit, the presence of an always-included completeness field, the types of mechanisms inspected, and the ownership attribution in entries. Combined with the annotations, this gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results cautiously.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters: 'mint' is described as an address or alias, 'chain' as a Solana chain id or alias. The description adds context that the tool reads the mint account and largest holders, but does not add syntax, format, or behavioral specifics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Before buying a Solana token, find out what could stop you selling it.' It names the specific mechanisms checked (transfer hook, permanent delegate, freeze authority, etc.), which differentiates it from general token inspection or market analysis tools. The explicit statement that canExit: true does not mean safe further distinguishes its scope from liquidity or valuation tools.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('Before buying a Solana token') and what it does not cover (liquidity locks, pool depth, token value). It tells the agent to read the 'completeness' field, providing a fallback for uncovered items. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for market analysis or mint auditing, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusionary routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.