Token Safety (Base)

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

token_verdict

token_verdict

Read-only

One-call verdict for an ERC-20 on Base: runs token risk (incl. holder concentration), rug-pull and momentum checks plus contract flags (proxy, blacklist, pause, selfdestruct, own on-chain sell simulation) and returns avoid / high_risk / caution / low_risk with a one-line English summary. Use once before buying or listing an unknown Base token. $0.01 via x402. Not investment advice.

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": "token_verdict"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, but the description adds substantive non-obvious behavior: a real on-chain sell simulation, the four verdict buckets returned, and a $0.01 x402 payment requirement. It omits runtime/latency and behavior on failing checks, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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 the core capability, then usage, pricing and disclaimer, with no filler sentences. The first sentence is quite dense with parenthetical clauses, but every clause carries information.

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?

For a composite multi-check tool with no output schema, the description names the return categories (avoid / high_risk / caution / low_risk) plus a one-line summary and discloses the payment requirement. What the individual check outputs contain is left implicit, which is a minor residual gap.

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 is fully documented there including the pattern and the no-address fallback returning the AERO example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('One-call verdict for an ERC-20 on Base') and enumerates the constituent checks (token risk incl. holder concentration, rug-pull, momentum, contract flags, sell simulation). It is clearly differentiated from the narrower siblings holder_check, momentum_score, rug_check and token_risk by presenting itself as the aggregator.

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 concrete usage condition: 'Use once before buying or listing an unknown Base token,' which tells the agent when the composite check is warranted. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the cheaper single-purpose siblings instead, which is the one missing routing cue.

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?