Token Safety (Base)

by dev.workers.restockalarm.token-safety-mcp

rug_check

rug_check

Read-only

Rug-pull check for an ERC-20 on Base: rug_pull true/false, confidence and 5 signals (liquidity removal, wash trading, LP lock, owner wallet, sell tax from our own sell simulation). Use before buying a new Base token. $0.02 via x402.

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": "rug_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	No	ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x + 40 hex). Tool calls are paid via x402 with or without it; if omitted, the paid call returns the AERO example with example=true. Free look without payment: GET https://token-risk.restockalarm.workers.dev/v1/preview.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / address / description

Previous value: -"ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x + 40 hex). If omitted, the AERO example is returned with example=true."New value: +"ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x + 40 hex). Tool calls are paid via x402 with or without it; if omitted, the paid call returns the AERO example with example=true. Free look without payment: GET https://token-risk.restockalarm.workers.dev/v1/preview."

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main added value is the pricing/payment model ('$0.02 via x402'), which is genuinely useful context an agent would not otherwise see. It does not add much about latency, failure modes for non-Base or non-ERC-20 addresses, or how confidence is derived.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the purpose and outputs, then closes with the cost. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical signal list makes it slightly crowded.

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

Completeness4/5

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-value burden and does so by naming rug_pull, confidence and the five signals, plus the cost. Missing only caveats about reliability of the verdict and behavior on invalid or non-Base addresses.

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% and the single 'address' parameter already documents the pattern, the omitted-address fallback (AERO example, example=true) and the free preview endpoint. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Rug-pull check for an ERC-20 on Base') and enumerates the outputs (rug_pull boolean, confidence, five named signals). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like token_risk or token_verdict, so an agent cannot tell the difference from the text alone.

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?

Gives a clear usage trigger: 'Use before buying a new Base token.' It does not name when NOT to use it or which sibling (token_risk, token_verdict, holder_check) covers overlapping ground, so selection among the risk tools is left to inference.

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

All Token Safety (Base) 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?