Money Maker x402 tools: EVM reads + AI tasks

by dev.workers.moneymaker-ai.ai-policy-kit

ERC-20 token risk screen (bytecode + on-chain, 8 chains)

token_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this token centrally controllable? Deterministic screen for a token on base, ethereum, bsc, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, gnosis or celo, from bytecode and eth_call only (no third-party risk API): upgradeable proxy and admin, owner and whether renounced, privileged functions found by selector scan of the token and its implementation (mint, pause, blacklist, tax/fee setters, max-tx limits, trading switch, fee exclusion, rescue), owner/self/burn share of supply, a 0-100 score with one reason per flag, and a list of what was not checked (no DEX sell simulation). Price: $0.003 USDC on Base per call, paid with x402 (MCP transport: an unpaid call returns the x402 PaymentRequired object; retry with params._meta["x402/payment"]). Same tool over HTTP: GET /api/token-risk.

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "token_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes
`token`	Yes	0x token contract address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses the commercial and mechanical behavior: $0.003 USDC per call on Base via x402, an unpaid call returns a PaymentRequired object, and the retry must carry params._meta['x402/payment']. It also bounds the result honestly by listing what was not checked, which is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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 controlling question is front-loaded and every clause is substantive — checked dimensions, output shape, price, payment flow, HTTP mirror. It is dense to the point of being a single run-on sentence, so scanning costs more than it should, but nothing is filler.

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 carries the return contract itself: a 0-100 score, one reason per flag, and an explicit not-checked list. Combined with payment mechanics and the HTTP endpoint, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 50%; only 'token' carries a description, and the description's re-listing of the eight chain names merely restates the enum rather than adding meaning (e.g. default chain, address format quirks). The only genuinely new parameter-level information is the _meta['x402/payment'] field needed on retry, which is useful but not schema-adjacent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a deterministic risk screen of an ERC-20 token across eight named chains, computed from bytecode and eth_call only. It enumerates exactly what is inspected (proxy/admin, ownership, selector scan for mint/pause/blacklist/fee setters, supply concentration) and what is produced, which lets an agent separate it from metadata tools like token_info without opening a schema.

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 opening question 'Is this token centrally controllable?' establishes the decision this tool serves, and the 'no third-party risk API' clause plus the explicit 'no DEX sell simulation' caveat tells the agent what the screen will not answer. It stops short of naming alternatives (token_info, token_balances) or stating when-not-to-call, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

All Money Maker x402 tools: EVM reads + AI tasks 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?