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 3.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity in selecting between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.
With a single tool, naming consistency is inherently maintained. The tool name 'check_cabal_risk' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
One tool for a specialized detection service is appropriate. While additional tools could enhance functionality (e.g., batch checks), the single tool covers the core use case effectively.
The tool provides a complete risk check as described. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of historical analysis or batch querying, but the main detection workflow is well-covered.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_cabal_riskAInspect
Real-time on-chain coordinated wallet detection for any Solana token mint.
Traces funding relationships between the top 20 holders using Helius RPC to detect coordinated wallets (cabals), insider snipers at launch, and bubble-map clusters. Returns a cabal confidence score 0–100 and a structured risk report.
COST: $0.05 USDC per query (paid on Solana mainnet). 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, 2-5s 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 carries full burden. It discloses use of Helius RPC, cost ($0.05 USDC per query), payment method (X-Payment-Signature header), typical response times (<100ms for pre-indexed, 2-5s for real-time), and that it is a read-only analysis tool. No destructive behavior is indicated, and no contradictions exist.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by details on functionality, cost, payment, and performance. It front-loads key information and each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but is effective overall.
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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, cost, payment, and timing. It mentions the return of a 'cabal confidence score and structured risk report' but does not detail the report structure. For a tool of moderate complexity, this is largely sufficient.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context that analysis focuses on the top 20 holders and mentions typical response times, but does not significantly elaborate on the parameters beyond the schema. The mintAddress and pairCreatedAt are described adequately in the schema.
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,' specifying the exact functionality (traces funding relationships, detects cabals, insider snipers, bubble-map clusters) and outputs (cabal confidence score and structured risk report). It is distinct in its focus on Solana and on-chain analysis.
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 token risk auditing but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (no sibling tools listed). It mentions cost and payment, which are important for usage context, but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions.
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!