Lucky x402

token check

token-check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pre-trade token & memecoin verdict OK/CAUTION/AVOID/UNKNOWN for EVM and Solana: honeypot sell simulation, taxes/transfer fee, mint/freeze/blacklist authority, DEX liquidity & pair age; every flag sourced (GoPlus, honeypot.is, RugCheck, DexScreener). Fails closed: no data -> UNKNOWN Price: $0.01 per call, USDC on Base via x402.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "token-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	optional: auto (Solana mint -> solana, else base)\|ethereum\|bsc\|arbitrum\|optimism\|polygon\|avalanche\|solana
`token`	Yes	0x... EVM contract or Solana mint (required)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 8, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / chain / description

Previous value: -"optional: base (default)|ethereum|bsc|arbitrum|optimism|polygon|avalanche"New value: +"optional: auto (Solana mint -> solana, else base)|ethereum|bsc|arbitrum|optimism|polygon|avalanche|solana"

changedInput schema / properties / token / description

Previous value: -"0x... token contract (required)"New value: +"0x... EVM contract or Solana mint (required)"

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description still adds real behavioral value: named data sources (GoPlus, honeypot.is, RugCheck, DexScreener) and an explicit fail-closed contract (no data -> UNKNOWN) so the agent knows missing signals never masquerade as safe. It also discloses a cost/auth requirement ("$0.01 per call, USDC on Base via x402"), which is essential before invocation. It does not describe latency or what happens on partial-source failure.

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 verdict and its possible values, then the evidence sources, then the failure mode and price — a sensible information order with no filler. It is dense to the point of being a run-on, and the pricing clause is appended without separation, 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the return categories and what drives them, plus the fail-closed rule, which is what matters for interpreting results. Minor gaps remain: it does not say whether flags are returned individually alongside the verdict, nor any rate limits.

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 coverage is 100%: both `token` and `chain` are fully described in the schema, including the auto-detection behavior for Solana mints. The description adds only that the tool spans EVM and Solana, which restates the schema rather than extending it with format or edge-case detail.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: a pre-trade token/memecoin verdict returning OK/CAUTION/AVOID/UNKNOWN, and enumerates the exact checks performed (honeypot sell simulation, taxes, mint/freeze/blacklist authority, DEX liquidity, pair age) across EVM and Solana. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling variants token-check-batch and token-check-free, so the single-vs-batch-vs-free routing is left to name inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Pre-trade" implies the usage context (screen a token before buying), which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the free or batch siblings that would let an agent decide between them when cost or volume matters.

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

All Lucky x402 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?