Agent Data API

token_quick_check

Quick rug check for a token on Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon or Solana: the 0-100 risk score, its level, a one-line summary and the top 3 reasons (mint, freeze, blacklist, fee or pause powers, upgradeable code, holder concentration, thin liquidity, a deployer with rugged launches). The full report at /token ($0.01) adds every reason, the facts behind it, price and liquidity, and change tracking. Rules-based, not advice. Costs $0.002 USDC on Base via x402.

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_quick_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain the token is on; defaults to solana for base58 addresses, otherwise base
`address`	Yes	Token contract (EVM) or mint (Solana) address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that the check is rules-based rather than advice, that payment is $0.002 USDC on Base via x402, and that output is truncated to the top 3 reasons. It says nothing about rate limits, failure behavior, freshness of cached data, or whether the score is deterministic across chains.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and result shape, followed by the upsell and the pricing/legal caveats; nearly every clause carries information. It is dense but two long sentences run together, and enumerating all six chains plus nine risk-reason types is somewhat listy.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the returned fields (score, level, summary, top 3 reasons) and the categories those reasons draw from. Chain support, the paid x402 pricing, and the non-advice disclaimer round out everything an agent needs to call this correctly.

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%, including the enum of supported chains and the defaulting rule for base58 vs 0x addresses, so the schema already conveys parameter meaning. The description restates the supported chain list but adds no new semantics beyond what the enum and property descriptions provide — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Quick rug check for a token") and enumerates exactly what comes back: 0-100 risk score, level, one-line summary and top 3 reasons. It also distinguishes itself from the deeper /token report, though it never names sibling tools like token_risk_check or token_verdict, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as the cheap, shallow option and points to an alternative (the full report at /token for $0.01) that adds every reason, the underlying facts, price/liquidity and change tracking. That gives a clear when-to-use-vs-when-to-pay-more decision, but there are no explicit exclusions or comparisons against the sibling risk/verdict tools.

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

All Agent Data API 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?