Skip to main content
Glama

100pro-token-risk

by dev.rendraputra
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Token risk screen (EVM + Solana, read-only)

token_risk_screen
Read-onlyIdempotent

Pre-trade risk screen for an EVM token contract or a Solana SPL mint (Base, Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, Arbitrum, Solana). Returns a markdown report: honeypot/tax/owner flags, LP-lock state, mint and freeze authority, transfer fee/hook, holder concentration, liquidity depth, wash-trade flags, and a final Verdict line. Up to 5 comma-separated tokens per call. $0.1 USDC per single token, $0.25 for a 2-5 token batch, on Base (x402 v2, no account, no API key). An unpaid call answers HTTP 402 with the payment challenge; sign it and retry with the payment in the call _meta. Read-only: it never signs, transfers, or approves anything on the caller's behalf.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoOptional. Omit it and the chain is inferred from the address shape (0x… → Base by default, base58 → Solana). Set it explicitly when the same address shape is ambiguous.
tokenYesEVM contract address (0x + 40 hex chars) or Solana SPL mint (base58). Batch up to 5 addresses, comma-separated. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesChain used for the screen, or `auto` when inferred
resultsYesOne entry per requested token, in request order

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain / default
      Added value: +null
    • changedInput schema / properties / chain / description
      Previous value: -"Optional; inferred from the address shape when omitted"New value: +"Optional. Omit it and the chain is inferred from the address shape (0x… → Base by default, base58 → Solana). Set it explicitly when the same address shape is ambiguous."
    • changedInput schema / properties / token / description
      Previous value: -"Contract address (0x…) or Solana mint; up to 5 comma-separated"New value: +"EVM contract address (0x + 40 hex chars) or Solana SPL mint (base58). Batch up to 5 addresses, comma-separated. Required."
    • addedInput schema / properties / token / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913",
+  "So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / token / maxLength
      Added value: +300
    • addedInput schema / properties / token / minLength
      Added value: +26
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "chain": {
+      "description": "Chain used for the screen, or `auto` when inferred",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "One entry per requested token, in request order",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "level": {
+            "description": "Leading level word of the verdict, uppercased (e.g. PASS, CAUTION, HIGH-RISK); empty when the report produced no verdict line",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "token": {
+            "description": "The address as requested",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verdict": {
+            "description": "The Verdict line exactly as it appears in the markdown report, e.g. `Verdict: CAUTION (3) — 1 high, 2 medium`",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "token",
+          "verdict",
+          "level"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "chain",
+    "results"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description details the HTTP 402 payment flow, the need to sign the challenge and retry with payment in `_meta`, pricing tiers, and the explicit guarantee that it never signs, transfers, or approves. This adds substantial behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

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 information-dense but every sentence serves a purpose: scope, output contents, batching, pricing/payment, and safety guarantees. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps all operational details relevant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a paid, read-only screening tool with an output schema, the description covers invocation, payment failure handling, retry semantics, batching limits, and safety posture. Nothing essential is left to guesswork, and the output schema covers the report shape.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces batching and chain-inference behavior, but it largely restates what the parameter descriptions already provide; it does not materially extend parameter semantics 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?

The description clearly states a specific action (pre-trade risk screen) and the exact resource types (EVM token contracts and Solana SPL mints), then enumerates the report contents. It is unambiguous and needs no sibling comparison to be understood.

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 phrase 'Pre-trade risk screen' establishes when the tool should be invoked, and the description explains when to set the chain explicitly versus relying on inference. There are no sibling tools to exclude, so the absence of explicit 'use instead of X' guidance is acceptable; the usage context is clear.

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

All 100pro-token-risk toolsInspect
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