Cabal-Hunter — Solana Token Cabal Detection

check_wallet_in_token

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All Cabal-Hunter — Solana Token Cabal Detection tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools are clearly separated by focus: one evaluates a token's overall cabal/rug risk, while the other checks a specific wallet's involvement in a specific token. Their descriptions reinforce distinct use cases with no meaningful overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the same snake_case verb-first convention: check_cabal_risk and check_wallet_in_token. The pattern is predictable and consistent, with no mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is at the thin end of the range for a server with this broad-sounding purpose. However, each tool is substantive and earns its place; the count feels borderline rather than wasteful.

Completeness4/5

The pair covers token-level risk assessment and wallet-level involvement checks well, including honeypot, holder concentration, dev track record, and funding-cluster evidence. The main gap is that the watch/alert lifecycle is described as an external API rather than exposed as MCP tools, but agents can work around it using the provided endpoint details.

Resources

Need Help?