WritersLogic verifiable AI agents

token-due-diligence

Token Due Diligence Pack — Honeypot / rug screening from live Base bytecode plus a Solidity audit of the token's verified source. Source is fetched from Sourcify (following EIP-1967/zeppelinos proxies to the implementation) when not supplied; unverified tokens are refused before any charge. Runs token-trap-detector ($0.25) + contract-auditor ($1.00) in one paid call for 20% less than buying them separately. Charged only whe

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": {
      "tokenAddress": "<tokenAddress>"
    },
    "name": "token-due-diligence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sourceCode`	No	Solidity source; fetched from Sourcify when omitted.
`contractName`	No	Contract to focus on when several are present.
`tokenAddress`	Yes	Token contract address on Base.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a lot: it is a paid call, prices the constituent checks ($0.25 + $1.00), states a bundling discount, describes Sourcify fetching with EIP-1967/zeppelinos proxy resolution, and says unverified tokens are refused pre-charge. However the critical billing clause is truncated at 'Charged only whe', leaving the actual charge condition and the report contents undisclosed.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: what it is, how source is obtained, what is refused, and what it costs all arrive in the first few clauses with no filler. It loses a point because the final sentence is truncated, leaving an unfinished thought rather than a complete one.

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 composite audit tool with no output schema, the description should say what the returned report contains (verdict, flags, findings). It covers inputs, sourcing, refusal policy, and cost, but the truncated charge clause and the absence of any return-value description leave real gaps an agent would want before spending $1.00.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the proxy-following nuance behind the Sourcify fallback; contractName and the address format constraints are not elaborated beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: honeypot/rug screening from live Base bytecode plus a Solidity audit of verified source. It also positions itself precisely against siblings by naming token-trap-detector and contract-auditor as the two checks it bundles, so an agent can tell immediately what it gets here versus calling those tools individually.

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?

Gives clear context for use (bundled screening+audit, 20% cheaper than buying the two siblings separately) and states the precondition that unverified tokens are refused before any charge. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance beyond the unverified case, and the pricing/usage sentence is cut off mid-word.

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

All WritersLogic verifiable AI agents 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?