cabal-hunter
Server Details
Solana token cabal/rug detection for AI agents - Exit-Liquidity verdict before you buy.
- 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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.
With a single tool, naming consistency is not an issue. The name 'check_cabal_risk' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
One tool for a multi-layered analysis is borderline. While the tool is comprehensive, the server might benefit from separate tools for each detection layer to improve modularity.
The tool covers all stated detection layers: funding trace, bundling, coordinated dump, honeypot check, and deployer track record. It provides a complete risk analysis with no obvious gaps.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_cabal_riskAInspect
Real-time on-chain coordinated wallet detection for any Solana token mint. Three detection layers in one call:
FUNDING TRACE — walks the top holders' history back to launch and finds wallets funded by the same source (classic cabal signature).
SAME-BLOCK BUNDLES — flags holders whose token accounts were created in the exact same block (Jito-bundled multi-wallet launches that route funding through intermediaries to evade funding traces).
time_sync: true. 2b. COORDINATED DUMP — flags ≥2 holders that SOLD a meaningful chunk (≥25% of their bag) in the exact same block: a cabal exiting in real time.coordinated_exit: true, clusters[].type='coordinated_exit', sold_pct. 3b. HONEYPOT CHECK (Solana-native) — live freeze authority, Token-2022 transfer-fee / transfer-hook / permanent-delegate traps, mint authority. Answers: CAN you actually sell this token? honeypot_risk: LOW | HIGH.DEPLOYER TRACK RECORD — resolves the token creator on-chain (works after graduation), pulls their full launch history, and reports how many of their previous tokens are dead. Verdicts: FIRST_LAUNCH / NORMAL / POOR_TRACK_RECORD / SERIAL_RUGGER.
Returns a cabal confidence score 0–100, cluster breakdown, holder map, and a plain-English verdict, e.g. "AVOID — 5 wallets bought in the EXACT same block, controlling 23% of supply. DEPLOYER ALERT: 13 of 13 previous launches dead."
COST: first 100 queries/month FREE — no signup, no API key. After that $0.01 USDC per query — priced at infra cost (it covers the Helius RPC/websocket calls behind each live on-chain trace). Paid on Solana mainnet via x402. PAYMENT: Include X-Payment-Signature header with a valid USDC transaction signature, or call GET /api/info for payment instructions.
Typical response time: <100ms for pre-indexed tokens, 1-5s for real-time analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mintAddress | Yes | The Solana mint address of the token to audit (base58, 32–44 chars) | |
| pairCreatedAt | No | Optional: DexScreener pairCreatedAt timestamp in milliseconds. Speeds up analysis when provided. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses three detection layers, explains each, mentions typical response times (100ms for pre-indexed, 1-5s for real-time), and states the output format. It could mention potential limitations like rate limits or unindexed tokens, but overall it is transparent.
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 lengthy but well-structured with numbered layers and clear sections. It includes pricing details which are informative but could be separated. However, it is organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description provides detailed information about the output (confidence score, cluster breakdown, plain-English verdict) and explains the detection layers thoroughly. It is complete for an agent to understand what to expect.
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%, with both parameters described adequately in the input schema. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it is for 'Real-time on-chain coordinated wallet detection for any Solana token mint.' It lists three detection layers and what it returns (cabal confidence score, cluster breakdown, etc.), making the purpose very specific and distinguishable from any potential siblings.
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 implies usage for detecting coordinated wallets on Solana tokens and includes pricing and payment details. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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!