Pre-trade token risk indicators (Base/Eth/Solana). $0.03 Base USDC keyless x402. [x402 paid: GET /api/x402/token-risk-indicators-json price $0.03 on Base]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base|ethereum|solana | |
| token | Yes | Token contract or mint |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / chain / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional, default base. Payment is always USDC on Base."New value: +"base|ethereum|solana"Input schema / properties / chain / enumRemoved value: -[
- "base",
- "ethereum",
- "solana"
-]Input schema / properties / token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Token address. Base/Ethereum: 0x + 40 hex. Solana: base58 mint."New value: +"Token contract or mint"Input schema / properties / chainAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional, default base. Payment is always USDC on Base.",
+ "enum": [
+ "base",
+ "ethereum",
+ "solana"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Base token contract address (0x...)."New value: +"Token address. Base/Ethereum: 0x + 40 hex. Solana: base58 mint."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the payment model ($0.03, Base USDC, keyless x402 paid endpoint), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or what happens on an unknown token.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, which is good, but the pricing is stated twice ('$0.03 Base USDC keyless x402' then again bracketed 'price $0.03 on Base') and the bracketed endpoint text reads like raw metadata rather than agent-facing prose.
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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the risk indicators actually contain on return, and it does not. An agent knows the price and the input but not the shape or scope of the result.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's chain list mirrors the schema's 'base|ethereum|solana' enum-like description rather than adding new meaning, 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 resource (token risk indicators) and use case (pre-trade) and enumerates supported chains (Base/Eth/Solana). It is clearly the only token-risk sibling in the list, though it never names another tool to explicitly differentiate itself.
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 phrase 'Pre-trade' implies the context in which to reach for it, but there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives among the many lion_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.