Skip to main content
Glama

Rokha

by ai.rokha
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Audit a Solana mint

singularityagent__mint_audit
Read-only

What a Solana mint account permits, read from the mint itself: which token program owns it, whether more can be minted, whether holder accounts can be frozen, whether its name can still be rewritten, and every Token-2022 extension on it — permanent delegate, transfer hook, transfer fee, default-frozen accounts, non-transferable, interest-bearing. Reach for it whenever someone asks whether a token is safe, what a mint can do to them, or why a transfer failed, and before treating an unfamiliar mint as ordinary. It returns powers and the addresses holding them, plus what is permanently settled — never a score or a verdict, because liquidity, holder concentration and the deployer are not in these bytes. Solana only. The metadata link is reported and deliberately never fetched.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYesThe mint address.
chainNoSolana chain id or alias. Defaults to "solana"; a non-Solana chain is refused.

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\"; a non-Solana chain is refused.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "mint": {
+    "description": "The mint address.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "mint"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it reads from the mint itself, reports but deliberately never fetches the metadata link, returns powers and addresses, and clarifies it does not assess liquidity, holder concentration, or deployer. It also states the non-Solana refusal. This goes well beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the core purpose, then lists specifics, usage scenarios, limitations, and constraints. No filler or redundancy. It is dense yet structured, making it easy for an agent to parse key facts quickly.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (powers and addresses, permanently settled facts) and what it does not return (scores/verdicts). It covers input constraints (Solana only) and the metadata link behavior. Nothing an agent needs to correctly call this tool 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% (both 'mint' and 'chain' are described). The description repeats the chain default and refusal but does not add new parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. It does add context that the mint is read from itself, but that is more behavioral than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 states a specific verb (audit) and resource (Solana mint account), enumerates exactly what it reports (owner, mint authority, freeze authority, metadata authority, Token-2022 extensions) and explicitly distinguishes itself from a scoring tool ('never a score or a verdict'). This is far more specific than the title and clearly separates it from siblings like token_identity or read_contract.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Reach for it whenever someone asks whether a token is safe, what a mint can do to them, or why a transfer failed, and before treating an unfamiliar mint as ordinary.' Also states exclusions: 'never a score or a verdict' and 'Solana only' with refusal of non-Solana chains. This leaves no ambiguity about appropriate invocation.

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

All Rokha toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources