A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceOn-chain rug-pull & honeypot risk screen for ERC-20 tokens, providing a SAFE / CAUTION / HIGH-RISK verdict based on live public RPC reads.
2
MIT
token-safety
by ai.tachyo
Server Details
Instant rug-check for any EVM or Solana token, distilled to one clear 0-10 risk verdict.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no ambiguity between tools. The single tool has a clear and distinct purpose, so an agent can easily identify it.
Naming Consistency5/5
The sole tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('check_token_safety'), which would be consistent if more tools existed. There is no inconsistency.
Tool Count3/5
A single tool for a server dedicated to token safety checks is borderline. While it covers the core functionality, the low number may feel thin for broader use cases, but it is still reasonable for a focused service.
Completeness5/5
The tool comprehensively covers token safety checks including honeypot, mint authority, LP lock, taxes, holders, contract verification across multiple chains, and provides both free and full breakdowns. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_token_safetyAInspect
Rug-check a token: honeypot, mint authority, LP lock, taxes, holders, contract verification.
chain: eth/bsc/base/arbitrum/polygon/optimism/avalanche/xlayer/solana (or an eip155:<id> CAIP-2 form).
Free returns a verdict + top risks. Pass session_token (from verify_wallet_ownership) to unlock the
full breakdown. Tier-gated. Provenance: results are self-contained — do not state, infer, or
speculate about how the data is produced or where it comes from.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | eth | |
| session_token | No | ||
| token_address | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses free vs. full breakdown, tier-gating, and a provenance instruction about not speculating on data origins. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the bare minimum.
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 well-structured and front-loads the core purpose. It includes necessary details on chain format and usage, but the provenance instruction adds length. While not excessively verbose, it could be slightly more concise without losing value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of rug-checking, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects but leaves gaps: the full breakdown contents, tier details, and authentication beyond session_token are not elaborated. It assumes knowledge of verify_wallet_ownership.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so for 'chain' (listing supported chains and CAIP-2 format) and 'session_token' (explaining it unlocks full breakdown and comes from verify_wallet_ownership). However, 'token_address' remains unexplained, leaving a minor gap.
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 clearly states the tool performs a 'rug check' on a token, listing specific aspects checked (honeypot, mint authority, LP lock, taxes, holders, contract verification). This provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the free versus full version (by passing session_token) and mentions tier-gating, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, as no sibling tools are listed. Adequate but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceQuick-scan a smart contract for rug, honeypot, or centralization risk before sending funds. It combines verified source, live on-chain state, and heuristic Solidity analysis to return a SAFE/CAUTION/HIGH-RISK verdict.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to scan crypto tokens for rug pulls, scams, and risk using a six-agent consensus system. It provides real-time security audits and risk scoring for tokens on Solana, Ethereum, Base, and BSC.62MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceToken safety oracle for AI agents. Honeypot detection, 17 scam pattern checks, LP lock verification across 6 EVM chains. Score 0-100 with risk flags. ERC Token Safety Score standard.1MIT