Skip to main content
Glama

Token Safety & Liquidity Intelligence Node

scan_token_safety

Scans token safety parameters and DEX liquidity metrics.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token_address": "<token_address>"
    },
    "name": "scan_token_safety"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
token_addressYesThe contract address to scan.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and largely drops it. Read-only behavior is implied by "scans," but there is no statement about external data sources, latency, rate limits, per-chain support, or whether the result is a score versus raw metrics.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the core capability front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin rather than a sign of disciplined editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should tell the agent what comes back, but it does not specify the shape of the safety report or liquidity figures. For a security-scanning tool whose whole value is the returned assessment, that omission is significant.

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% and the single parameter is documented as "The contract address to scan." The description adds no further meaning about the address (chain-agnostic? EVM only? checksummed?), so the schema is doing all the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("scans") and a specific resource set ("token safety parameters and DEX liquidity metrics"), which tells an agent exactly what domain the call covers. It loses the top score only because there are no sibling tools to differentiate from and no indication of what a "safety parameter" concretely includes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. supported chains), and no mention of what this tool is not for. An agent must infer that it is a pre-trade / due-diligence check purely from the words "safety" and "liquidity."

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.

Resources