cerberus-index

check_endpoint

Endpoint & tool trust — one call before an agent connects to a third-party MCP server or HTTP tool. Pass the endpoint url (and, to unlock the strongest check, its tools: the name/description/inputSchema the agent is about to trust). Returns three signals behind one verdict: (1) transport & TLS identity — encrypted, valid chain, not expired or self-signed; (2) domain age via RDAP — freshly-registered hosts are a scam tell; (3) a TOOL-POISONING scan of the tool definitions for the hidden directives that hijack agents — instruction overrides, 'don't tell the user', data exfiltration, secret harvesting, tool-shadowing, and invisible-unicode / homoglyph steganography that a human reviewer can't see. Nobody else screens tool descriptions for injection. Verdict: trusted | caution | untrusted | unknown, with per-finding evidence. 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
`url`	Yes
`tools`	No
`attest`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: returns three signals (transport/TLS, domain age, tool-poisoning scan), pricing ($0.008 USDC), optional attest parameter for signed output, and verdict types. No contradictions.

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 lengthy but each sentence adds value, is well-organized with front-loaded purpose and subsequent details. Slightly verbose but appropriate for the complexity.

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 no output schema, description explains return values (verdict with evidence). Covers parameters, pricing, attestation, and points to 'submit_feedback' for gaps. Complete for a security checking tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description adds crucial meaning: 'url' is the endpoint, 'tools' are tool definitions to enable strongest check, 'attest' boolean for signed attestation. Explains why 'tools' is optional but beneficial.

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 checks an endpoint and tool definitions for security prior to connecting to third-party MCP/HTTP tools, with specific verb 'check' and resource 'endpoint'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_address', 'check_transaction', etc., which have different purposes.

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?

Explicitly says 'one call before an agent connects to a third-party MCP server or HTTP tool', provides context for when to use, and mentions alternatives like 'submit_feedback' for missing features and 'verify_attestation' for attestation verification.

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?