Skip to main content
Glama

StatePulse API

by dev.workers.hahavoid0.statepulse-api

getTokenSafety

One call that bundles the checks needed before trusting an unfamiliar ERC-20 token: scans deployed bytecode for dangerous function selectors (mint/pause/blacklist), reads on-chain owner() to check if ownership was renounced, and cross-references DexScreener for liquidity depth and pair age — returning a single risk score with flags. Matches: rug pull check, token safety score, is this token safe, contract risk scan, honeypot pre-check, ownership renounced check, liquidity risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesERC-20 token contract address on Base

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's actions: scanning for dangerous selectors, reading owner(), and querying DexScreener for liquidity. It also mentions returning a risk score with flags, leaving no ambiguity about behavior.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence covering all core aspects, followed by a list of matching queries. It is front-loaded and informative, though slightly long due to the query list.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, actions, and expected output (risk score with flags). No additional information is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'address' has 100% schema coverage with a description. The tool description adds value by explaining how the address is used in the safety checks, providing context 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 the tool bundles multiple checks for ERC-20 token safety, including scanning bytecode, checking ownership, and cross-referencing DexScreener. It also lists matching search queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other domains.

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 specifies 'before trusting an unfamiliar ERC-20 token' as the use case and lists relevant queries. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context makes the intended usage clear.

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

All StatePulse API toolsInspect
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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping functionality, e.g., auditNetworkHost combines DNS, SSL, and header checks that have dedicated tools (auditDnsSecurity, checkSslExpiry, auditSecurityHeaders). Multiple weather and blockchain tools also overlap in scope, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., getAirQuality, checkDnsPropagation), but a few deviate (agentPreflight, capabilitiesDiff) and some use compound names (depositCoordinationBounty). Overall, the pattern is clear but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count1/5

With 56 tools, the server is far too large for a coherent MCP surface. The number suggests a collection of many unrelated APIs rather than a focused tool set. A typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools.

Completeness2/5

While the tool set covers many domains, each domain has shallow coverage. For example, blockchain tools miss basic transaction sending and contract deployment; weather tools lack forecasts. The 'requestMissingData' endpoint acknowledges gaps, but the current surface is severely incomplete for a general-purpose API.

Resources