Sausage Onchain

Token rug-pull / honeypot check

token_safety

Heuristic token safety check: follows the proxy and scans the bytecode that actually runs, plus ownership and transfer restrictions. Returns a verdict with per-rule evidence. Paid: call without x_payment to receive this call's exact terms (amount, asset, network), sign them, then call again with x_payment. The free pricing tool lists every price at once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Which chain the token contract is on.	base
`address`	Yes	Token contract address.
`x_payment`	No	Optional signed x402 payment payload (base64, what the X-PAYMENT header carries). Omit to receive the exact payment terms; sign them (e.g. @x402/fetch) and call again with this argument to settle and get the data.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the heuristic nature, proxy-following behavior, and that it returns a verdict with per-rule evidence. It also transparently explains the payment requirement and two-step call pattern, providing strong behavioral context beyond a simple 'checks token safety' statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with three short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then explains the payment flow and pricing alternative without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the core functionality, output format (verdict with per-rule evidence), the payment mechanism, and an alternative tool. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or edge cases, but for a heuristic check tool with good parameter docs, this is sufficient.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The tool description reiterates the payment flow but does not add any new parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema's x_payment description.

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 it is a heuristic token safety check that follows proxies and scans runtime bytecode, plus ownership and transfer restrictions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nft_scam_check by focusing on rug-pull/honeypot detection and even points to the pricing tool for price-related needs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage instructions for the paid payment flow (call without x_payment to get terms, sign, then call again with x_payment) and mentions the free pricing tool as an alternative for pricing. It doesn't explicitly exclude other sibling tools but gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Sausage Onchain 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: address screening, chain info, ENS resolution, data discovery, gas routing, gas pricing, NFT scam checking, pricing metadata, data requests, spot prices, swap quotes, and token safety. Although gas_compare and gas_price both involve gas, one ranks chains while the other gives fees for a single chain; token_safety and nft_scam_check target different asset types. No two tools are likely to be confused.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case but follow no single convention. Some are verb-first (find_data, request_data, swap_quote), some noun-first with a verb (address_screen, ens_resolve, gas_compare), and several are noun-noun compounds (chain_info, gas_price, spot_price, token_safety). This mixed pattern makes the naming feel inconsistent, even though each name is readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the server sits comfortably in the well-scoped range for a blockchain data/utility provider. Each tool addresses a distinct need, and the count is not excessive for the breadth of on-chain operations covered. Every tool appears to earn its place without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a broad set of on-chain needs: screening (address, token, NFT), pricing (spot, swap, gas), identity (ENS), chain metadata, and meta-tools for discovery and requests. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct transaction/block inspection or portfolio-level functions, but these are not core to the server's apparent purpose and agents can work around them using find_data to locate additional endpoints.

Resources

Need Help?