Skip to main content
Glama

Token report — price + safety in one call ($0.0045)

token_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

PAID ($0.0045 USDC via x402). The full picture on an ERC-20 in ONE call: live price, liquidity, 24h volume, market cap/FDV and the most-liquid DEX pair (DexScreener) TOGETHER with the complete safety verdict — honeypot / buy&sell tax / owner privileges / holder concentration / LP-locked / CEX listing (GoPlus). One payment instead of chaining token_price + token_safety. Without payment this returns the 402 challenge; the fiatdock-mcp npm package pays automatically. A bad address returns 400; no liquidity/security data returns 404; an upstream outage or partial scan returns 502 — none is charged. Not financial advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain slug: base (default), ethereum, polygon, arbitrum, optimism, bsc, avalanche
tokenYesERC-20 contract address (0x…) to report on
paymentNoBase64 of a single x402 v2 PaymentPayload (EIP-3009 transferWithAuthorization on Base USDC). OMIT it on the first call: the 402 you get back carries `howToPay.payloadTemplate` — the exact envelope to fill in — plus the price and the EIP-712 domain. Send it on the second call to complete the purchase; it is forwarded as the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, never as body data. Nothing is charged for the 402 itself, and a call that fails after payment settles nothing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asOfYesISO 8601 read time
nameYesToken name
noteYesHuman-readable caveat
priceYesPrice/liquidity from the most-liquid DEX pair (DexScreener)
safetyYesOn-chain safety verdict (GoPlus) — same shape token_safety returns
sourceYesData sources
symbolYesToken symbol
addressYesThe ERC-20 contract address
networkYesChain slug the report is for (e.g. base)
verdictYesHeadline safety verdict: safe | caution | danger

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Base64 of a single x402 v2 PaymentPayload (EIP-3009 transferWithAuthorization on Base USDC). OMIT it on the first call: the 402 you get back carries `howToPay.payloadTemplate` — the exact envelope to fill in — plus the price and the EIP-712 domain. Send it on the second call to complete the purchase; it is forwarded as the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, never as body data. Nothing is charged for the 402 itself, and a call that fails after payment settles nothing.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover read/idempotent/openWorld; the description adds substantial behavior beyond them — the x402 paid flow, the 402 challenge on unpaid calls, automatic payment via the npm package, and precise error semantics (400 bad address, 404 no data, 502 upstream/partial, none charged, failed-after-payment settles nothing).

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?

Front-loaded with price and the one-call value proposition, and dense with actionable detail. It is somewhat long with parenthetical vendor tags and a closing 'Not financial advice' disclaimer that is marginal, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given a paid, multi-source tool, the description still covers payment flow, error codes, and charge behavior — everything needed to invoke it correctly without surprises.

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 each parameter (chain, token, payment) is already fully documented in the schema, including the payment envelope mechanics. The description reinforces the payment flow but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('The full picture on an ERC-20 in ONE call') and enumerates the exact data returned: live price, liquidity, 24h volume, market cap/FDV, best DEX pair, plus safety verdict fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools token_price and token_safety by naming both.

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 tells the agent when to prefer this over alternatives: 'One payment instead of chaining token_price + token_safety.' It also gives the payment procedure (omit payment on first call, resend on second) and the failure conditions that are not charged.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.