Solana token rug-risk scores. Free basic score; full report pay-per-call via x402 (0.03 USDC).
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools operate on the same domain and return overlapping outputs (a 0-100 score and A-F grade), differing mainly in depth and payment model. Descriptions do clarify the free-vs-paid and summary-vs-full distinction, but the names 'report' vs 'score' are subtle and an agent could easily pick the wrong one.
Both tools follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern with a shared prefix (get_token_risk_*), making the set highly predictable.
Two tools is thin for a server, though the narrow purpose (Solana token risk) makes a free-tier plus paid-tier pair defensible. There is little surface beyond a single report type.
The paid report covers authorities, extensions, holders, liquidity, volume, pool age, and flag explanations, which is thorough for token risk. Gaps are minor: no batch lookups, historical trend data, or wallet-level risk.
Rugsight full risk report for a Solana SPL / Token-2022 token: mint & freeze authority, Token-2022 extensions, top-20 holder breakdown (wallets vs pools/programs/burn), liquidity, 24h volume, pool age, every risk flag explained, 0-100 score and A-F grade (or IC = issuer-controlled for allowlisted regulated assets such as USDC, PYUSD, cbBTC or xStocks). Costs 0.03 USDC on Solana per call, paid with x402: call without payment to receive the PaymentRequired object, then retry with _meta["x402/payment"].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana token mint address (base58) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | |
| name | No | |
| flags | Yes | |
| grade | Yes | A-F from the score; IC = issuer-controlled (allowlisted regulated/issuer asset) |
| score | Yes | |
| issuer | No | |
| market | No | |
| symbol | No | |
| holders | No | |
| verdict | No | |
| decimals | No | |
| supplyUi | No | |
| checkedAt | No | |
| confidence | Yes | |
| disclaimer | No | |
| extensions | No | |
| tokenProgram | No | |
| mintAuthority | No | |
| technicalGrade | No | |
| freezeAuthority | No | |
| authorityHolders | No | |
| issuerControlled | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the paid nature (0.03 USDC on Solana per call), the exact two-step payment handshake, and the IC = issuer-controlled special case for allowlisted regulated assets like USDC or PYUSD — a non-obvious output convention an agent could easily misread. It also enumerates the report contents so the caller knows the shape and depth of the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the payoff (full risk report) followed by the content enumeration, then the payment mechanic last. The middle enumeration is long but each item is real information an agent needs to judge whether to spend 0.03 USDC, so little is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a single-parameter read tool: the output schema handles return structure, and the description still covers cost, payment retry mechanics, and the IC grade edge case. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it successfully is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single mint parameter is already fully documented in the schema (base58 mint address with a base58 pattern constraint), so the description adds no format or validation meaning beyond it. With 100% schema coverage this is the expected baseline rather than a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb and resource ("Rugsight full risk report for a Solana SPL / Token-2022 token") and enumerates exactly what the report contains: authorities, Token-2022 extensions, holder breakdown, liquidity, volume, pool age, flags, score and grade. It is unmistakably the comprehensive variant, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling get_token_risk_score, so the agent must infer that the sibling is the cheaper score-only path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives concrete operational guidance for the x402 flow: call without payment to receive the PaymentRequired object, then retry with _meta["x402/payment"]. It does not state when to prefer this over get_token_risk_score or when a full report is unnecessary, so the sibling routing decision is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free basic risk score for a Solana token: 0-100 score, A-F grade (or IC for allowlisted issuer-controlled assets), verdict and risk flag codes. Free, no payment needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana token mint address (base58) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | |
| flags | No | |
| grade | Yes | |
| score | Yes | |
| issuer | No | |
| verdict | No | |
| checkedAt | No | |
| confidence | No | |
| technicalGrade | No | |
| issuerControlled | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the cost model (free, no payment) and the special 'IC' grade for allowlisted issuer-controlled assets, which is the kind of nuance an agent would otherwise misread as a data error. It still omits rate limiting or whether the grade is cached.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output shape. Minor waste: 'Free' appears twice ('Free basic risk score' and 'Free, no payment needed'), which is redundant but not confusing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and a single fully documented parameter, the description only needs to cover intent and the unusual grade semantics, both of which it does. The one remaining gap is explicit routing versus the sibling report tool, which would make the definition complete for an agent choosing between them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter, and the schema fully documents it (100% coverage with a base58 pattern). The description adds nothing about the mint address beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('basic risk score for a Solana token') and enumerates what the score contains (0-100 score, A-F grade, verdict, flag codes). The word 'basic' hints at a lighter tier than the sibling get_token_risk_report, but the sibling is never named, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Saying 'free, no payment needed' implies this is the cheap/first-pass option, which lets an agent guess it should be tried before the fuller report. However, no sentence says when to prefer get_token_risk_report or what the report adds, so choosing between the two 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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_token_risk_report6 fields changedOutput schema / properties / authorityHoldersAdded value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "freeze": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "mint": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / grade / descriptionAdded value: +"A-F from the score; IC = issuer-controlled (allowlisted regulated/issuer asset)"Output schema / properties / grade / enumPrevious value: -[
- "A",
- "B",
- "C",
- "D",
- "F"
-]New value: +[
+ "A",
+ "B",
+ "C",
+ "D",
+ "F",
+ "IC"
+]Output schema / properties / issuerAdded value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "assetType": {
+ "enum": [
+ "stablecoin",
+ "tokenized-stock",
+ "wrapped-asset"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / issuerControlledAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / technicalGradeAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "A",
+ "B",
+ "C",
+ "D",
+ "F"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}get_token_risk_score4 fields changedOutput schema / properties / grade / enumPrevious value: -[
- "A",
- "B",
- "C",
- "D",
- "F"
-]New value: +[
+ "A",
+ "B",
+ "C",
+ "D",
+ "F",
+ "IC"
+]Output schema / properties / issuerAdded value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "assetType": {
+ "enum": [
+ "stablecoin",
+ "tokenized-stock",
+ "wrapped-asset"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / issuerControlledAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / technicalGradeAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "A",
+ "B",
+ "C",
+ "D",
+ "F"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}get_token_risk_reportget_token_risk_scoreSolana token/wallet rug-risk scoring. Free scan; $2 SOL unlocks full wallet report. No signup.
Solana token rug check before you buy: SAFE/CAUTION/DANGER from chain state, paid per call via x402.
Solana token rug/honeypot checks: free quick check; full score paid via x402 (USDC Solana/Base).
Solana address risk grades and token scans for AI agents. Pay-per-call via x402 (USDC on Base).
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.