Cabal-Hunter — Solana Token Cabal Detection
Server Details
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.
- 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 4.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion with other tools.
The single tool name 'check_cabal_risk' is descriptive and follows a consistent naming pattern. No inconsistency arises.
A single tool for a specialized domain is borderline. While the tool is comprehensive, the server might benefit from splitting functionalities into separate tools for modularity.
The tool covers multiple critical aspects of cabal detection (holder concentration, bundles, coordinated dumps, honeypots, deployer history, funding clusters) delivering a thorough safety check.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_cabal_riskAInspect
Pre-trade safety check for any Solana token mint: is a buyer about to be someone's exit liquidity? Every flag links to its on-chain evidence tx.
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 Jito-bundled multi-wallet launch.
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?
DEPLOYER TRACK RECORD — the creator resolved on-chain plus their full launch history (FIRST_LAUNCH / NORMAL / POOR_TRACK_RECORD / SERIAL_LAUNCHER). Context, deliberately CAPPED: most prolific pump.fun creators have high dead-token rates, so a dead history alone flags 'review' and can never by itself produce a HIGH verdict. Death != rug.
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: first 250 scans/month FREE — no signup, no API key. After that $0.001 USDC per scan, priced at cost (covers the Helius RPC behind each trace). 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.
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?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It exhaustively details the six analysis layers, explains data sources (on-chain Helius RPC), clarifies exclusions (LP pools, locked supply), describes response times, and documents degraded mode. This is exceptionally 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, clear headings, and front-loaded purpose. While cost and payment details could be separate, they are relevant for agent decision-making. Slight verbosity prevents a perfect score.
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 no output schema, the description comprehensively explains all return fields (risk, cabal_score, top_holder_pct, cluster breakdown, evidence_txs, etc.) and behavior under degradation. This fully compensates for the missing output schema and addresses all likely agent questions.
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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining mintAddress format and that pairCreatedAt speeds up analysis when provided, which goes beyond the schema's descriptions. It does not introduce confusion or redundancy.
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's purpose: 'Pre-trade safety check for any Solana token mint: is a buyer about to be someone's exit liquidity?' It explicitly lists what the tool does and returns risk levels and detailed breakdown. Despite no sibling tools, the purpose is unmistakable.
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 context by explaining the cost structure (free first 250 scans) and mentioning degraded mode when verification fails. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but since no siblings exist, the guidance is adequate and clear for the intended use case.
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!