get_token_risk_scoreFree 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 | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | ||
| flags | No | ||
| grade | Yes | ||
| score | Yes | ||
| issuer | No | ||
| verdict | No | ||
| checkedAt | No | ||
| confidence | No | ||
| technicalGrade | No | ||
| issuerControlled | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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"
+}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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.