cerberus-index

check_address

Cross-chain address & counterparty risk — one call before you send to, approve, or trust an address. EVM chains (ethereum, base, bsc, polygon, arbitrum, optimism, avalanche, …): sanctions, mixer, phishing, drainer, money-laundering & cybercrime flags aggregated from GoPlus, told whether it's a contract or a wallet. XRP Ledger (r-addresses): Cerberus's own engine — the production rug blocklist, live clawback/global-freeze flags (can this address seize or freeze tokens it issues?), burn-address detection, and prior launch history — coverage no incumbent offers. Chain is auto-detected; pass chain to pick the EVM network (default ethereum). Verdict: high_risk | caution | safe | unknown, source named. Price: $0.008 USDC. Missing something? Call submit_feedback (free) to request it. Pass attest=true to also get an Ed25519-SIGNED attestation of this verdict — portable proof you can log, hand to a counterparty, or verify later with verify_attestation (free) or the published key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`attest`	No
`address`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the risk sources (GoPlus, Cerberus), auto-detection of chain, verdict levels, pricing, and attestation option. No side effects or contradictions noted.

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 lengthier but every sentence provides value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows a logical structure. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it's well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (cross-chain, two engines, optional attestation, pricing), the description is remarkably complete. It covers coverage, verdicts, price, feedback option, and even missing output schema by listing verdict values and source.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates. It explains the 'chain' parameter (optional, auto-detected, default ethereum), 'attest' (boolean for attestation), and 'address' (required). The explanations add meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Cross-chain address & counterparty risk — one call before you send to, approve, or trust an address.' It specifies supported chains and risk categories, distinguishing it from siblings like check_alerts or check_issuer_reputation.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('before you send to, approve, or trust an address') and provides context for EVM and XRP Ledger. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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

All cerberus-index 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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: address checks, token checks, price analysis, transaction simulation, path finding, wallet history, pool discovery, attestation, and monitoring all have clear boundaries. While some tools share domain (e.g., check_xrpl_token vs resolve_asset), their purposes are clearly differentiated in descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Nearly all tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_*, get_*, verify_*, analyze_*, explore_*, find_*, quote_*, watch_*, submit_*). The only slight deviation is 'token_holders', a noun phrase, but it is still concise and follows the same lowercase snake_case style, so it does not create confusion.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is on the heavier side of the ideal range, but the server's scope—cross-chain security, token analysis, monitoring, attestation, and market data—justifies this breadth. Each tool covers a distinct sub-domain, so the count is reasonable though slightly above the typical 3-15 sweet spot.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: token discovery, safety, identity, price, holders, monitoring, address/issuer risk, transaction simulation, route finding, wallet activity, endpoint trust, and attestation. There are no obvious dead ends; users can discover tokens, verify them, track them, and receive alerts—a full lifecycle for crypto risk assessment.

Resources

Need Help?