YourAITools MCP Hub

TokenVerdict: Base token safety verdict

check_token

Read-onlyIdempotent

Safety verdict for a Base (chain 8453) ERC-20 token: SAFE / CAUTION / DANGER with a 0-100 score, from a simulated buy-transfer-sell (honeypot and tax detection), owner powers, proxy, liquidity, holders, verification and age. Free preview tier: verdict, score and flag counts. The paid x402 endpoints /v1/lite ($0.005), /v1/quick ($0.015) and /v1/deep ($0.05) add the reasons and evidence. SAFE is not a guarantee and not financial advice.

[TokenVerdict via YourAITools MCP Hub] Free tier: same as TokenVerdict's own MCP server (call without payment and without tier). Paid: lite $0.005 / verdict $0.01 / quick $0.015 / deep $0.05 per call, with a credits key (Authorization: Bearer yatc_...) or x402 (USDC; the hub returns the payment terms). Failed tool calls aren't charged: credits are refunded automatically and x402 payments only settle on success.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "check_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No	Paid tier: lite $0.005, verdict $0.01, quick $0.015, deep $0.05. Omit tier (with no credits key or x402 payment) to use the free tier.
`token`	Yes	Base (chain 8453) ERC-20 contract address, e.g. 0x532f27101965dd16442E59d40670FaF5eBB142E4
`address`	No	(paid calls only)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / token / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "0x532f27101965dd16442E59d40670FaF5eBB142E4"
+]
```

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / address

Added value: +{
+  "description": "(paid calls only)",
+  "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / tier / description

Previous value: -"Paid tier: lite $0.005, quick $0.015, deep $0.05. Omit tier (with no credits key or x402 payment) to use the free tier."New value: +"Paid tier: lite $0.005, verdict $0.01, quick $0.015, deep $0.05. Omit tier (with no credits key or x402 payment) to use the free tier."

changedInput schema / properties / tier / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "lite",
-  "quick",
-  "deep"
-]New value: +[
+  "lite",
+  "verdict",
+  "quick",
+  "deep"
+]

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld already cover safety) by disclosing the analysis method (simulated buy-transfer-sell for honeypot and tax detection), the signal set (owner powers, proxy, liquidity, holders, verification, age), what each tier returns, and the charge policy on failure (credits refunded, x402 settles only on success). It also states the limitation that SAFE is not a guarantee.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is well front-loaded with purpose and output shape, but the tier pricing (lite $0.005 / quick $0.015 / deep $0.05) is stated twice in the description and again in the schema, and the bracketed hub paragraph repeats hub/payment boilerplate. Redundancy costs it, though nothing is actively confusing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 convey return shape, and it does: verdict, 0-100 score and flag counts on the free tier; reasons and evidence on paid tiers. What's missing is any hint of the response object structure or how flags should be interpreted, and the undocumented 'address' parameter.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the enum: it explains what the free tier returns versus what paid tiers add, and that payment/key absence selects the free tier. The one gap is the 'address' parameter, which the schema labels only as '(paid calls only)' and the description never explains.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Safety verdict for a Base (chain 8453) ERC-20 token') and enumerates the output ('SAFE / CAUTION / DANGER with a 0-100 score') plus what signals drive it. The chain-8453 scoping cleanly separates it from sibling check_solana_token and from generic screen_address.

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?

Clearly explains the free-preview vs paid-tier decision: omit tier with no key/payment to get verdict, score and flag counts; supply a tier for reasons and evidence, with prices for each. It states the conditions but never names a sibling alternative (e.g. check_solana_token for other chains, screen_address for wallet-level risk), so routing is only implicit.

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

All YourAITools MCP Hub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?