Free token risk check (Base/Solana) + info on paid x402 reports. Not financial advice.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly different roles: one is a free directory of paid endpoints, the other performs a free token risk check. An agent can distinguish them, though the shared 'TokenSafe' branding and free/paid framing could invite momentary confusion about which to call for a risk result.
Both names use snake_case, but the patterns differ: 'paid_endpoints_info' is noun+info while 'tokensafe_free' is brand+qualifier with no verb. There is no predictable verb_noun convention across the set, though both are readable and descriptive.
Two tools is thin for a token-safety domain, and one of them is purely metadata about external paid endpoints rather than a functional operation. It is borderline rather than absurd, since the server appears to be a freemium discovery gateway.
The free check covers basic risk flagging, but the server only advertises the paid reports without exposing a way to invoke them or retrieve their results. There is no history, batch, or comparison operation, leaving notable gaps for a safety-checking workflow.
Lists the paid x402 endpoints (USDC on Base): TokenSafe quick/full reports, PoolScan new-pool feed, PromptVault prompt pack. Prices, URLs and how to pay. This tool itself is free and charges nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool itself is free and charges nothing, which is a meaningful cost-safety signal. But it doesn't say whether it hits the network, whether results are cached, or what the response shape looks like. Some value added, incomplete for zero-annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short clauses: what it lists, the specific catalog, and the free/no-charge note. Every sentence earns its place and the scope is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-param discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what endpoints exist and that it's free, but doesn't describe the return format (JSON? list? fields like price, url, pay instructions) or how to actually use the returned pricing. It's adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the payload.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rules the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter details and instead front-loads what the tool returns, which is the right allocation for a parameter-free endpoint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource — it lists paid x402 endpoints — and enumerates exactly which three (TokenSafe, PoolScan, PromptVault) with sub-scopes like quick/full reports. This is far more specific than the sibling tokensafe_free, making the distinction immediate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is implied usage: an agent would call this to discover paid endpoints and how to pay for them. However, it never says when to use this versus the sibling tokensafe_free, nor does it frame the trigger as a conditional ('call this first if you need pricing'). Useful but not fully routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free limited token risk check for a Base or Solana token: risk level, honeypot/mintable/ownership-renounced/open-source flags and up to 3 warning flags. Rate limited (20/hour per IP). Informational only, not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | token contract (Base) or mint (Solana) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the rate limit (20/hour per IP), the scope limitation ('limited', 'up to 3 warning flags'), and an 'Informational only, not financial advice' caveat. It does not state auth requirements or whether any state is modified, but for a read-style risk check that is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, followed by the operational caveats. No filler, though the output enumeration is dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so concretely (risk level plus named flags and warning count). Combined with the rate limit and disclaimer, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only auth/paid-tier context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: the address param is documented but the chain enum has no description. The description partially compensates by naming the two supported chains ('Base or Solana'), but adds no syntax or format detail for the address beyond what the schema already says.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('token risk check') and enumerates the outputs returned (risk level, honeypot/mintable/ownership-renounced/open-source flags, warning flags). It hints at a paid counterpart via 'Free limited' but never names the sibling paid_endpoints_info, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'Free limited' plus the disclosed 20/hour per IP rate limit implies this is the entry-tier check to use when you want a quick, no-cost scan, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to the sibling tool for higher limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
paid_endpoints_infotokensafe_freeRisk and structure facts on one Solana or Base token, never a trading signal. Paid per call by x402.
Paid x402 tools: tx, approvals, address, contract risk (Base/ETH/BSC) + URL safety.
Real-time token contract safety scanner and honeypot auditor via x402 on Base.
Solana token due-diligence: 3-source fused risk verdict incl. LP-lock depth. $0.01 via x402.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.