Token Facts

token_facts

Onchain facts for a Base ERC20 address: ERC20 shape, honeypot-style selectors and an ungraded adminPowers profile (proxy, owner, mint, blacklist, pause) with raw evidence per check. No DEX data, grade is n/a. No LLM.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "token_facts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Base (chain 8453) ERC20 contract address, 0x plus 40 hex characters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that each check ships 'raw evidence', that results are ungraded, that no DEX data is involved, and that no LLM interpretation is applied. What it omits is an explicit read-only/side-effect statement and any note on latency, caching, or failure modes for non-contract addresses.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and returned artifacts front-loaded and the exclusions trailing. The telegraphic jargon ('ungraded adminPowers profile', 'honeypot-style selectors') costs a little readability but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return shape, and it does list the adminPowers sub-checks and the per-check raw evidence. The gap is that it never says what the ERC20 shape fields are or what happens when the address is not a contract, which matters for an unannotated tool with no return schema.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented as a Base (chain 8453) ERC20 address in 0x-prefixed hex. The description's phrase 'for a Base ERC20 address' restates the schema rather than adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific resource (a Base ERC20 contract address) and enumerates exactly what is returned: ERC20 shape, honeypot-style selectors, and an adminPowers profile covering proxy, owner, mint, blacklist, and pause. It is unambiguous about the tool's job, though 'Onchain facts' is a slightly nominal framing rather than a crisp verb; no siblings exist to differentiate from.

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?

It explicitly excludes a nearby use case ('No DEX data') and sets expectations on grading ('grade is n/a'), which steers an agent away from misusing it for market or scored analysis. What remains implicit is the positive condition — i.e., that this is for contract-level inspection of a Base ERC20 address — but the field enumeration makes that inferable.

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

All Token Facts 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?