Real-time on-chain coordinated wallet detection for Solana tokens. Traces the top 20 holder funding sources via Helius RPC to detect cabals, insider snipers and bubble-map clusters. Returns a cabal confidence score 0–100. $0.05 USDC per query, paid natively on Solana. No API key, no account, no subscription.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are clearly distinct: one assesses overall token cabal risk for a mint, the other checks a specific wallet's involvement in a specific token. There is no meaningful overlap in their query targets or outputs.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern: check_cabal_risk and check_wallet_in_token. The naming is predictable and clearly conveys each tool's action and object.
With only two tools, the server feels thin even though each tool has substantial functionality. The scope could justify a few more tools (e.g., managing watches or screen lists), but the two provided are well-focused.
Core detection is covered: token risk assessment and wallet involvement lookup. However, the continuous watch feature and screen-list management are described in the tool text but not exposed as MCP tools, leaving notable gaps for agents needing persistent monitoring.
Pre-trade safety check for any Solana token mint: is a buyer about to be someone's exit liquidity? Every wallet cluster carries its evidence_txs.
AFTER YOU BUY: POST /api/watch {mint, webhook_url} with an X-API-Key (a free key is enough) and we push you an alert the moment a coordinated dump or liquidity drain starts on that token — carrying the same on-chain evidence. This scan is a BUY check; a watch is a HOLD check, and a holder needs the second one continuously. GET/DELETE /api/watch manage your own.
Layers, ordered by STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE (not marketing):
HOLDER CONCENTRATION — what share one wallet actually controls
(top_holder_pct). A single wallet that can crater the price is the
most basic rug vector, and it needs no coordination at all.
IMPORTANT: we count only REAL wallets. LP pools, locked/vesting supply
and other program-owned accounts are excluded and labelled, never scored
as a whale — and supply comes from getTokenSupply, not an estimate. Tools
that skip this report a locked-supply token as '65% one wallet'. Our
numbers reconcile with GMGN's circulating top-10.
SAME-BLOCK BUNDLES — holders whose token accounts were created in the
EXACT same block: a multi-wallet launch bought in one slot. A Jito bundle is
one way to do that, not the only one - we read the slot, not the bundle.
time_sync: true.
COORDINATED DUMP — ≥2 holders each selling ≥25% of their bag in the same
block: a cabal exiting in real time. coordinated_exit: true, sold_pct.
HONEYPOT / AUTHORITY TRAPS (Solana-native) — live freeze authority, un-revoked mint authority, Token-2022 transfer-fee / transfer-hook / permanent-delegate traps. Answers: CAN you actually sell this token?
DEV TRACK RECORD — the creator resolved on-chain plus their full launch history WITH the peak market cap each past token hit, so a dead-count can't hide a pump-and-dump. Covers ANY Solana venue: pump.fun, Raydium, Orca, Meteora, PumpSwap. A launch counts only where the transaction actually CREATED the mint, so re-minting supply of an existing token is never miscounted as a launch. reputation (SERIAL_RUGGER / DEAD_ON_ARRIVAL / MIXED / PROVEN) + best_peak_usd, pump_and_dumps count; paid tier adds launches[] (peak_mcap_usd, now_mcap_usd, drawdown, status per launch). 'Ran to $728k, now dust' = this dev has dumped six figures on holders before. Still CAPPED: peak history is evidence, never softens the score. READ deployer.verdict CAREFULLY — two values mean opposite things: FIRST_LAUNCH = we walked the history and found no earlier tokens. UNKNOWN = the history could NOT be established. That is not evidence of anything and must never be treated as a clean record.
FUNDING-CLUSTER TRACE — top holders walked back to a shared funding wallet. A real capability, listed last on purpose: on our own sample it produced no verified detections once infrastructure (curve PDAs, token accounts) was correctly excluded. Treat it as supporting evidence.
Returns risk (CLEAN|MEDIUM|HIGH), cabal_score 0–100, top_holder_pct, cluster
breakdown with evidence_txs[], holder map, deployer verdict, honeypot_risk,
plus wallets_checked / scan_complete / degraded so YOUR agent can apply its
own risk tolerance instead of inheriting ours. If we cannot verify something,
we say so (degraded: true) rather than returning a confident 'clean'.
COST: 5 scans/month FREE with no signup and no API key; 250/month free with a key (one email, no card). After that $0.001 USDC per scan. Two ways to pay, no signup or card: (1) $9/month UNLIMITED (fair use, 50k/mo) — best for 24/7 bots; or prepaid pay-as-you-go at $0.001/scan (any amount) — POST the tx to /api/buy-key, then send header X-API-Key; or (2) per-call via x402 (X-Payment-Signature header). Full terms: GET /api/info.
FRESHNESS: a token traced in the last 8 hours is answered from that trace in <100ms; computed_at (unix seconds) says exactly when it was traced. Any other token runs the full live on-chain trace and takes 15-20s — set your client timeout to at least 30s or you will abandon a scan that was about to succeed.
| 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the freshness/caching behavior (8-hour traces answered in <100ms vs full live trace in 15-20s), the degraded-mode honesty policy ('if we cannot verify something, we say so'), what counts versus what is excluded (real wallets only, LP/locked supply excluded), and the cost model. It even warns about treatment of the UNKNOWN verdict. No important behavioral trait is hidden.
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 evidence layers are well-structured with clear headers and ordered by evidentiary strength, and critical warnings (FIRST_LAUNCH vs UNKNOWN) are front-loaded. However, the description is very long and carries substantial non-functional content: a marketing pitch for the paid tier ('best for 24/7 bots'), detailed pricing arithmetic, and redundant re-explanation of the watch endpoint. These earn their place only partially, dragging the score below what the structure alone merits.
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?
For a tool of this complexity — an external-API interaction with cost, caching, and multiple evidence layers — the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return fields (risk, cabal_score, top_holder_pct, degraded flag), tells the agent it can apply its own risk tolerance, and instructs on the required client timeout. The absence of an output schema is offset by the description listing the key return components explicitly.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning about the two parameters themselves — it confirms supply comes from getTokenSupply rather than an estimate, but that's about tool behavior, not the parameters. The functional details around pairCreatedAt (speeding up analysis) are already in the schema. Nothing is misleading, but nothing compensates beyond baseline.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing ('Pre-trade safety check for any Solana token mint') and frames the exact question it answers ('is a buyer about to be someone's exit liquidity?'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling check_wallet_in_token by focusing on buyer-side risk per mint, and even explains the complementary watch endpoint as a separate HOLD check. An agent can select it unambiguously.
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 explicitly marks this as a BUY check and contrasts it with the watch workflow ('a watch is a HOLD check... GET/DELETE /api/watch manage your own'), giving an agent both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also states practical preconditions: free tier limits, no signup required, and the 30s client timeout needed to avoid abandoning a live trace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Is a SPECIFIC wallet involved in a SPECIFIC Solana token? Use this when a user names a wallet they are worried about, or when your agent keeps its own watchlist of addresses and wants to screen a token against one.
Answers from two sources at once:
the traced holders of that token — rank, % of supply, buy slot, whether it funded a coordinated cluster, whether it created the token, or whether it is the liquidity pool / a labelled exchange wallet
a LIVE on-chain holding lookup, so a wallet too small to appear in the trace is still resolved rather than dismissed
HOW TO READ THE RESULT — this matters more than the fields:
found_in_scan=false is NOT a clean bill of health. The trace covers the
largest holders, so a smaller position sits outside it, and a wallet that
sold out and closed its token account leaves nothing to observe. Never
tell a user a wallet is 'clean' or 'not involved' on this result. The
note field states the limit of what was actually checked; relay it.
holding.sold_out=true is the strong signal: a token account exists holding none of the token, i.e. this wallet HELD it and has since sold out.
track_record, when present, counts earlier tokens the wallet was early in and how many graduated. It is an association measured out-of-sample, NOT a profit signal and not a recommendation to copy or avoid anyone. Absence of a track record means we hold no record, not that the wallet has no history.
Free, no API key, rate limited per caller. For screening MANY wallets on every scan automatically, the Screen List add-on stores a private list per key: POST /api/screen-list/checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | The wallet address to look for in that token (base58, 32–44 chars) | |
| mintAddress | Yes | The Solana mint address of the token (base58, 32–44 chars) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the dual-source lookup, warns that found_in_scan=false is not a clean bill of health, explains holding.sold_out=true as the strong signal, and cautions that track_record is not a profit signal or recommendation.
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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, behavior, result-interpretation caveats, and access constraints. It front-loads the core question and usage case, then structures critical warnings in a clear, readable way.
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?
Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call and interpret the tool correctly: result meaning, limitations, false-negative risk, rate limiting, and authentication. Nothing essential appears missing for this tool's complexity.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds contextual meaning by framing them as 'specific wallet' and 'specific token,' but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 the tool answers whether a specific wallet is involved in a specific Solana token, with a concrete use case. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool check_cabal_risk, so it misses the highest bar for sibling distinction.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: when a user names a worried-about wallet or when an agent screens a token against a watchlist. It also mentions the Screen List add-on as an alternative for bulk screening, though it does not discuss exclusions relative to check_cabal_risk.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_wallet_in_tokentrace_fundingtrace_funding
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.