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.
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.
Average 4.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as a pre-trade risk check for Solana tokens, leaving no ambiguity.
The single tool name follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_cabal_risk), which is clear and conventional. Since there is only one tool, the naming convention is uniformly applied.
At one tool, the server sits at the extreme lower end of the scale. While the tool is comprehensive, the server feels thin because it offers only a single operation with no supporting tools for listing, monitoring, or comparing tokens.
The check covers the core domain of cabal detection with six evidence layers and detailed output, but the server lacks proactive capabilities such as scanning new tokens or listing recent risks. This is a minor gap for a 'hunter' service, preventing a perfect score.
check_cabal_riskAInspectPre-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?
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. 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.
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. Every scan is a live on-chain trace, not cached data. 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 (most graduated pump.fun mints are already cached). A token we have never seen 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?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It explicitly states the tool performs live on-chain traces, not cached lookups; reports degraded mode when verification is impossible; counts only real wallets and excludes LP pools/locked supply; and provides detailed response-time expectations for pre-indexed versus unseen tokens. This far exceeds typical descriptions.
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 substantial and includes extensive detail about methodology, pricing, and payment options, which goes beyond essential invocation info. However, it is well-organized with numbered layers and bold headings, front-loads the core purpose, and each section serves a clear informational role. Minor redundancy in cost explanation 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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description compensates thoroughly by enumerating the exact return fields (risk, cabal_score, top_holder_pct, evidence_txs[], holder map, deployer verdict, honeypot_risk, wallets_checked, scan_complete, degraded), explaining the semantics of each analysis layer, and covering error/degraded behavior, cost, and performance expectations. This is complete for an AI agent to decide whether to invoke and interpret results.
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?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description adds some context and methodology but does not elaborate significantly on the parameters themselves, keeping it at the baseline of 3.
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 clear statement: 'Pre-trade safety check for any Solana token mint: is a buyer about to be someone's exit liquidity?' This specifies the exact action (safety check), the resource (Solana token mint), and the purpose (assess exit liquidity risk), making it unambiguous.
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?
While there are no sibling tools to contrast with, the description clearly positions this as a pre-trade check meant to precede any buy decision. It explains when it may be less reliable (degraded mode), when a full trace takes longer (unseen tokens), and that users should set timeouts, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
