Solana Token Intelligence
Server Details
Solana token due-diligence: 3-source fused risk verdict incl. LP-lock depth. $0.01 via x402.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: token_intel is a paid tool for any token, while token_intel_demo is a free demo for a fixed sample token. There is no ambiguity in their roles.
Both tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern (token_intel and token_intel_demo), with the demo variant clearly indicated by the '_demo' suffix. This makes the naming predictable and easy to understand.
The server provides exactly two tools, which is slightly low but appropriate for a focused intelligence service. The main tool and a demo tool cover the essential needs without unnecessary complexity.
The tool surface covers the core functionality of obtaining token intelligence, including a free demo to verify output. Minor potential gaps like batch queries or alternative output formats are not critical for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolstoken_intelSolana token due-diligence (paid, $0.01 USDC on Base or Solana via x402)ARead-onlyInspect
Fused safety + market read on any Solana token: mint/freeze authorities, holder concentration, dev holdings, organic score, liquidity cross-checked across three independent sources (Jupiter, DexScreener, RugCheck incl. LP-lock depth), synthesized 0-100 risk verdict. PAID: $0.01 USDC on Base or Solana (x402 v2, keyless). To pay: fetch requirements by calling this tool once (returned in-band), settle via an x402 client, then retry with the base64 payment payload either as the '_payment' argument or the X-PAYMENT HTTP header. Try token_intel_demo first — it is free and proves the pipeline live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | SPL mint address (base58) | |
| _payment | No | base64 x402 payment payload (alternative to the X-PAYMENT header) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare read-only and open-world, and description adds behavioral details: paid nature, in-band payment requirements, and that it returns a risk verdict. No contradiction.
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?
Description is information-dense but well-structured, starting with purpose then payment. Slightly verbose but all essential.
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?
Given paid tool with payment workflow, description covers everything: what it does, payment instructions, and outcome (0-100 risk verdict). No gaps.
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?
Schema covers both parameters fully (100%). Description adds context for _payment (alternative to header) and explains payment workflow, adding value beyond schema.
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 clearly states it performs 'safety + market read' on Solana tokens, listing specific authorities and checks. It distinguishes from sibling token_intel_demo, which is free and for testing.
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?
Explicitly advises to try token_intel_demo first for free. Details payment requirement, payment method (x402), and how to settle and retry with payload or header.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
token_intel_demoFree demo — full pipeline, fixed sample (BONK)ARead-onlyInspect
Free. Returns the complete three-source intelligence report for a fixed sample token (BONK), exercising the exact production pipeline — verify output quality before paying for token_intel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds valuable context: free, fixed sample BONK, exercises full production pipeline. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences, no filler, front-loaded with key information.
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?
For a demo with no output schema and zero parameters, the description sufficiently explains purpose and usage. Could optionally mention report content but not necessary.
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?
Schema has zero parameters, so no parameter details needed. Baseline 4 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?
Description explicitly states it's a free demo returning a complete three-source intelligence report for a fixed sample token BONK, clearly distinguishing it from the paid sibling tool token_intel.
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?
Provides direct guidance: 'verify output quality before paying for token_intel', telling agents exactly when to use this demo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!