Solana token risk: free preview tools; paid x402 full reports (Solana; swap-guard also Base).
Scored across 3 tools
paid_endpoints is clearly distinct (it lists purchasable endpoints), but swap_guard_preview and token_risk_preview both return truncated risk teasers for a Solana mint and could be confused at a glance. Descriptions do differentiate them (swap verdict + sell-route vs. authority/liquidity/holder flags), so overlap is manageable.
All names are snake_case and descriptive, with two following a clear <domain>_preview pattern. paid_endpoints deviates slightly by not using an action/preview suffix, but the convention is still readable and consistent overall.
Three tools sits at the thin edge for a token-risk service; the surface is essentially two previews plus an endpoint catalog. It is not mismatched, but each capability is minimal and a full risk-check tool is absent.
The server covers preview-level risk signals (authorities, liquidity, holders, swap verdict) and points to paid endpoints, but offers no tool to actually retrieve the full report, so agents hit a dead end inside the server and must implement x402 payment outside it. Notable gaps remain for batch, historical, or full-detail checks.
List Axiom's paid x402 endpoints with prices and URLs (USDC on Solana; /swap-guard also accepts Base). For agents that can pay via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful domain context (pricing is USDC on Solana, and /swap-guard also takes Base), but does not explain that consuming the listed endpoints requires an x402 payment flow, nor anything about rate limits or response shape.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the audience qualifier and the payment-currency caveat. Nothing is wasted or 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 no output schema, the description must hint at returns, and 'with prices and URLs' does that. For a zero-param, read-only listing tool this is close to complete, though it could say more about the payment step needed to act on the results.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is warranted or missing.
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 and resource ('List Axiom's paid x402 endpoints') and enumerates what each entry carries (prices and URLs), which is more than the bare name conveys. It does not name or contrast itself with the sibling preview tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The clause 'For agents that can pay via x402' gives a target audience, implying when the tool is relevant, but it never states when to use it over swap_guard_preview or token_risk_preview, nor any exclusion or prerequisite flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free pre-swap verdict teaser (CLEAR/CAUTION/AVOID) for a Solana mint: truncated reasons, risk bucket, sell-route yes/none, liquidity bucket. Full report via paid x402 /swap-guard ($0.01 USDC on Solana or Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana SPL token mint address (base58) | |
| sizeUsd | No | Optional trade size USD for sell-route check (default 100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing that results are deliberately truncated and listing exactly which signals are included. It does not mention rate limits, caching, or latency, which would be the remaining useful behavioral context.
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?
A single dense sentence that leads with what the tool returns and closes with the upsell path to the paid endpoint. Every clause carries information, though the stacked field list reads a bit cramped.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and the verdict categories. Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, an agent has nearly everything needed; rate limits and truncation specifics are the only gaps.
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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents base58 mint format and the default sizeUsd of 100. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond that, which matches the 3 baseline.
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?
Concrete verb+resource: it produces a free pre-swap verdict (CLEAR/CAUTION/AVOID) for a Solana mint, and enumerates the payload fields (truncated reasons, risk bucket, sell-route, liquidity bucket). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the paid endpoint it names, and no other sibling offers a free Solana mint swap verdict.
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 clearly frames itself as the free teaser and routes the agent to the paid alternative with exact price and rails ($0.01 USDC via x402 /swap-guard). It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when the full report is required), so it stops just short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free quick risk preview for a Solana token mint: mint/freeze authority, liquidity, holder concentration flags (truncated). Full report via paid x402 endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana SPL token mint address (base58) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the result is truncated, it is free, and the complete report requires a paid x402 payment flow. It does not detail return format, but for a read-only preview the added disclosure is substantive.
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?
Two clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and scope before the paid-alternative note. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a read-only preview tool with full parameter coverage and clear annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: the covered checks, the truncation caveat, and the paid route for the full report. No output schema exists, yet the returned fields are summarized adequately.
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 100% for the single 'mint' parameter, which already documents it as a base58 SPL token mint address. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource (free quick risk preview for a Solana token mint) and enumerates the checks it covers (mint/freeze authority, liquidity, holder concentration flags). It contrasts itself against the 'paid x402 endpoint' full report, so its scope as a truncated preview is clear, though it does not name the sibling tool exactly.
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?
Implies the selection condition clearly: use this for a free, quick, truncated check, and go to the paid x402 endpoint for the full report. There is no explicit exclusion beyond the truncation caveat, but the alternative and its trigger are both present.
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.
paid_endpointsswap_guard_previewtoken_risk_previewFree token risk check (Base/Solana) + info on paid x402 reports. Not financial advice.
Solana SPL token risk checks: free preview tool plus links to paid x402 (USDC) full reports.
Solana token rug/honeypot checks: free quick check; full score paid via x402 (USDC Solana/Base).
Pay-per-call Solana token risk intelligence: 8 tools via x402. From $0.005 USDC, no API key.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
