Skip to main content
Glama

cabal-hunter

by com.cabal-hunter.api

check_cabal_risk

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.

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):

  1. 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.

  2. SAME-BLOCK BUNDLES — holders whose token accounts were created in the EXACT same block: a Jito-bundled multi-wallet launch. time_sync: true.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintAddressYesThe Solana mint address of the token to audit (base58, 32–44 chars)
pairCreatedAtNoOptional: DexScreener pairCreatedAt timestamp in milliseconds. Speeds up analysis when provided.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
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 succeeds: it discloses that scans are live on-chain traces, that `degraded: true` is returned when verification fails, that UNKNOWN must not be treated as a clean record, and that first scans can take 15-20 seconds. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, layers are numbered by evidence strength, and each section adds non-obvious detail such as exclusion rules and output semantics. It is not minimal, but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must and does explain return values: risk, cabal_score, top_holder_pct, evidence_txs, deployer verdict, honeypot_risk, and degraded flags. It also covers pricing, authentication, timeout needs, and the distinction between cached and live traces, so an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 mintAddress and pairCreatedAt. The description does not materially add parameter-level semantics beyond calling the scan a token audit and noting that pairCreatedAt speeds analysis, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Pre-trade safety check for any Solana token mint: is a buyer about to be someone's exit liquidity?' This clearly identifies the tool's operation and scope, and it is immediately distinguishable from the watch endpoint it mentions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly contrasts the scan with the watch endpoint: 'This scan is a BUY check; a watch is a HOLD check, and a holder needs the second one continuously.' It also tells the agent to use the watch flow AFTER buying, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All cabal-hunter toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only a single tool exists, so there is no ambiguity between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly a pre-trade risk check, and references to external API endpoints do not introduce tool-selection confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

With only one tool, the name check_cabal_risk follows a clear verb_noun pattern. There are no other tools to contradict this convention, making naming internally consistent.

Tool Count2/5

The server exposes only one tool, but its own description references watch management, API key purchases, and service info endpoints that are external API calls rather than MCP tools. This leaves the tool surface feeling too thin for the service's apparent scope, as agents cannot perform the hold-check or manage watches through MCP.

Completeness2/5

The stated purpose includes both a buy check and a continuous hold watch, but only the buy check is exposed as a tool. Agents following the description cannot set up or manage watches without making raw HTTP calls, which breaks the expected workflow and creates a significant gap in coverage.

Resources