Kestrova Solidity Security Scan

scan_solidity_full

OPTIONAL, PAID ($1.00 USDC via x402 on Base or Solana). Structured Slither findings for Solidity: detector, impact, confidence, description and file/line locations, for fixing each issue. counts and findings cover every finding; each finding's scope is "application" or "dependency" (located only in uploaded lib// or node_modules/ code; original severity kept), with application_counts and dependency_counts. Without a valid x402 payment in _meta['x402/payment'] it returns the payment terms and does NOT scan or charge. Charged only after a successful scan. Pay only with your user's explicit authorisation and within their spending limits.

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": {
      "sources": "<sources>"
    },
    "name": "scan_solidity_full"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sources`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing price ($1.00 USDC), payment rail (Base or Solana), that an unpaid call returns terms without scanning or charging, and that billing only follows a successful scan. It also explains the application/dependency scope split and that original severity is preserved for dependencies. A caveat is that it does not describe runtime characteristics like scan duration or size limits, which matter for a paid remote call.

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 pricing and payment-gating context is front-loaded before the field-level detail, which is the right ordering. It is dense but most sentences carry unique information; only the two payment sentences overlap slightly ('does NOT scan or charge' vs 'Charged only after a successful scan').

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a paid tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, gating, field contents, and the application/dependency split well. The notable omissions are the shape and constraints of the required 'sources' argument and any expectation about scan duration or input size.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single required parameter 'sources' is a nested object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not what the keys should be (file paths?), what the string values are (source text?), or size expectations. With one undocumented nested parameter, this is a real gap the description should have closed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Structured Slither findings for Solidity' — and enumerates the returned fields (detector, impact, confidence, description, file/line). It does not name the free sibling scan_solidity_preview as its alternative, so an agent must infer the 'OPTIONAL, PAID' contrast rather than being told it.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is framed around payment: it explains the x402 prerequisite, the no-payment fallback, and the need for explicit user authorisation. However it never says when to choose this over scan_solidity_preview or payment_terms, leaving the free-vs-paid decision implicit.

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

All Kestrova Solidity Security Scan tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?