QuickBuild token-saver tools + x402

base_token_verdict

Read-onlyIdempotent

[PAID $0.01 USDC per call via x402 on Base; errors are free] Fixed documented point rules (returned in rules[]) over live public Base RPC reads, Blockscout and the free GeckoTerminal API (liquidity, volume, FDV, price change, top pool). Unavailable values are null and not scored (listed in unknown[]). No LLM. Every response has disclaimer: "informational only, not investment advice". Not a contract = 404, invalid = 400, never charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "base_token_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	No	0x ERC-20 token address on Base (default USDC)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses payment via x402, free errors, data sources, null handling through unknown[], absence of LLM, mandatory disclaimer, and specific HTTP behavior for non-contract and invalid addresses. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read-only, open-world, idempotent tool.

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 dense but efficient, packing pricing, data sources, null handling, disclaimer, and error semantics into a compact block. It is mostly front-loaded, though the initial billing bracket precedes a clear statement of what the tool produces.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It mentions rules[], unknown[], and disclaimer, but does not describe the overall verdict/score fields or response shape, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool whose name promises a verdict.

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%, with the single optional address parameter documented as a 0x ERC-20 token address on Base defaulting to USDC. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description identifies a specific resource (Base ERC-20 tokens) and implies a scoring/verdict operation through 'fixed documented point rules' and named data sources (RPC, Blockscout, GeckoTerminal). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic info tools, but it never explicitly states the output is a verdict/score and does not differentiate from siblings like base_token_info or base_risk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives pricing and error behavior but no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as base_token_info or base_risk. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison conditions, leaving usage to inference from the tool name.

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

All QuickBuild token-saver tools + x402 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?