Two pre-trade decisions: should-i-pay + token-verdict. ERC-8004 sybil forensics + live pool checks
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools target genuinely different questions: token risk before a swap vs. counterparty risk before an A2A payment. The descriptions do a good job of drawing the line (on-chain ERC-8004 evidence vs. Bazaar demand data), but the should_i_pay description points to a non-existent 'agent_interact_gate' tool for broader questions, which can leave an agent unsure where that case should go.
Both names are snake_case, but the conventions differ sharply: one is a verb_noun command (check_base_token_safety) and the other is a first-person question (should_i_pay). Readable in isolation, yet there is no predictable pattern an agent can extrapolate a third tool from.
Two tools is thin for a server branding itself 'On-chain AI Agent Intelligence' spanning token safety, agent reputation, and x402 seller trust. Each tool is substantive, but the surface is borderline too small to justify a dedicated server.
There is a clear dead end: should_i_pay defers broader agent questions to 'agent_interact_gate', which is not in this tool set, so that workflow simply fails. Coverage is also asymmetric — payment checks accept Solana targets while token safety only covers Base tokens, and there is no way to inspect an agent's raw ERC-8004 reputation or batch-screen multiple targets.
Is this Base token BASED / MID / COOKED / RADIOACTIVE? Deterministic verdict before you buy: grade, action (ENTER_OK / CAUTION / SKIP), confidence, red flags (honeypot, sell tax, mintable supply, owner privileges, holder concentration, thin liquidity) and expected loss for your amount. Call it before swapping into any Base token. Fail-closed: an unknown token returns UNKNOWN, never "safe". Risk screen, not investment advice. REST: GET|POST /api/v1/token/verdict ($0.02).
Args: token: ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x...) amount_usd: planned position size in USD (scales expected_loss_usd)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| amount_usd | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, but the description adds real value beyond them: fail-closed semantics (unknown token returns UNKNOWN, never "safe"), the exact verdict taxonomy, the enumerated red-flag categories, and the $0.02 cost plus REST endpoint.
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?
Front-loaded with the framing question and verdict scale, then progressively adds call guidance, failure behavior, disclaimer, and endpoint. Dense but nearly every sentence carries information; the informal grade jargon and the advisory disclaimer are the only slightly soft parts.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return structure, and it still previews the key fields. For a 2-param read-only screen, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load and does: token is defined as an ERC-20 contract address on Base with the 0x... format, and amount_usd is defined as planned position size that scales expected_loss_usd — the latter explains the causal relationship the schema does not.
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 (safety check / verdict) and resource (Base ERC-20 token) and enumerates the exact outputs: grade, action, confidence, red flags, expected loss. Clearly distinct from siblings like mint_rug_check or check_wallet_reputation, which cover different assets/entities.
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?
"Call it before swapping into any Base token" gives an explicit trigger and ordering. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the Base-specific scope implicitly excludes the Solana/wallet/agent siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Pre-payment decision for any A2A payment: "should I pay this seller $N?". Call it before every payment to an unknown agent or x402 seller — the agent-facing equivalent of a credit check: pay $0.01 to avoid paying a scammer $N. Answers with action PAY / CAUTION / SKIP, confidence and expected loss in USDC sized to your exact amount. Target by ERC-8004 agent_id, Solana pubkey, x402 seller_url or seller pay_to wallet. Agent targets use on-chain ERC-8004 evidence; seller targets use Bazaar demand (repeat payers/calls). For seller targets wallet_flow is marked not_available — demand data does not see seller→payer round trips. Use agent_interact_gate instead when the question is broader than payment. REST: GET /api/v1/should-i-pay ($0.01).
Args: agent_id: ERC-8004 agent id of the payment TARGET (or use another target) solana_asset: Solana 8004 agent pubkey (alternative to agent_id) seller_url: x402 seller resource URL or domain (alternative target) pay_to: seller payTo wallet — EVM 0x… or Solana base58 (alternative target) amount_usd: the USDC amount you are about to pay
Not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pay_to | No | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| amount_usd | No | ||
| seller_url | No | ||
| solana_asset | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the $0.01 call cost, the REST endpoint, the evidence source per target type (on-chain ERC-8004 vs Bazaar demand), and a genuine limitation ('wallet_flow is marked not_available' for seller targets). Disclosing a known data blind spot is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before trusting the verdict.
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?
The critical routing information (what it is, when to call it, what it returns, how to target) is front-loaded and dense. It runs somewhat long, and the closing 'Not investment advice' is boilerplate that doesn't earn its place, but nothing substantive is padded.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't detail the return shape, yet it still summarizes the verdict fields (action, confidence, expected loss) at the right level. Combined with per-target evidence explanations and the sibling pointer, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all five parameters — and it does, with meaning and mutual exclusivity for each: agent_id, solana_asset (alternative), seller_url (alternative target), pay_to (with 'EVM 0x… or Solana base58' format guidance), and amount_usd (the USDC amount about to be paid). This fully compensates for the bare schema.
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 decision verb and resource — a pre-payment risk assessment that returns PAY / CAUTION / SKIP with confidence and expected loss — and immediately names the sibling/alternative (agent_interact_gate) it is not. An agent can distinguish it from check_base_token_safety because the scope is agent/seller reputation rather than token contract safety.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger ('call it before every payment to an unknown agent or x402 seller') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('use agent_interact_gate instead when the question is broader than payment'). The cost-of-use tradeoff ($0.01 to avoid losing $N) further justifies when the call is worth making.
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.
should_i_pay2 fields changedInput schema / properties / pay_toAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Pay To",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / seller_urlAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Seller Url",
+ "type": "string"
+}agent_interact_gateagent_livenesscheck_agent_trustcheck_wallet_reputationget_a2a_relationshipsget_agent_livenessget_agent_slaget_agent_trust_passportget_bazaar_growth_statsget_bazaar_market_intelget_bazaar_organic_rankingget_bittensor_network_healthget_bittensor_subnet_trustget_bittensor_trust_overviewget_btc_grid_signalget_execution_healthget_pump_alertsget_reputation_summaryget_signalsget_smart_money_feedget_solana_agentsget_solana_forensicsget_solana_trust_summaryget_top_smart_buyersget_trading_decisionget_trending_agentsget_trust_forensicsget_wallet_profilemint_rug_checkreputation_originverify_signal_proofx402_seller_verdictcheck_base_token_safetymint_rug_checkx402_seller_verdictagent_interact_gateget_smart_money_feedshould_i_pay1 field changedInput schema / properties / amount_usd / defaultPrevious value: -0.05New value: +0.01agent_livenessreputation_originshould_i_payget_pump_alertsget_trading_decisionget_btc_grid_signalget_bazaar_market_intelget_top_smart_buyersget_wallet_profilecheck_agent_trustget_agent_trust_passportget_bazaar_growth_statsget_bazaar_organic_rankingcheck_wallet_reputationget_a2a_relationshipsget_agent_livenessget_agent_slaget_bittensor_network_healthget_bittensor_subnet_trustget_bittensor_trust_overviewget_execution_healthget_reputation_summaryget_signalsget_solana_agentsget_solana_forensicsget_solana_trust_summaryget_trending_agentsget_trust_forensicsverify_signal_proofx402-payable on-chain forensics tools: token verdicts, settle-safe RWA screens, wallet trust screens
Pre-trade token safety checks for AI agents on Solana and Base. x402 USDC per call, no key.
Solana pre-trade safety for AI agents: cabal, bundle, dump, deployer & honeypot in one verdict.
Pre-trade oracle: real slippage, honeypot/sellability at size, exotic DEXs and new chains.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.