RugShield 402

rugshield_audit_cross_chain_bridge_risk

Read-only

Audits canonical Base bridge and CCIP/LayerZero endpoints for message replay vulnerabilities, unbacked wrapped collateral, and admin multisig latency. Cost: 0.020 USDC on Base & Solana Mainnet.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token_address`	Yes	Target ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x...) or Solana SPL Mint

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Detailed metric findings
`status`	Yes	Execution status
`verdict`	Yes	Cryptographic assessment verdict
`risk_score`	No	Risk severity score
`token_address`	Yes	Target token address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Detailed metric findings",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "risk_score": {
+      "description": "Risk severity score",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Execution status",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "token_address": {
+      "description": "Target token address",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "description": "Cryptographic assessment verdict",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "token_address",
+    "verdict"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / token_address / description

Previous value: -"Target ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x...)"New value: +"Target ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x...) or Solana SPL Mint"

AddedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description’s main added value is disclosing the 0.020 USDC cost and the specific audit dimensions. It does not describe turnaround, failure modes, or output format, but the output schema covers returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with zero waste. The audit scope is front-loaded and the cost disclosure is separated cleanly.

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?

The output schema, annotations, and full parameter schema carry much of the burden, while the description adds audit scope and cost. It is nearly complete, though explicit guidance on when to choose this over adjacent token-audit siblings would make it stronger.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: audits canonical Base bridge and CCIP/LayerZero endpoints. It also names the exact risk classes checked, distinguishing it from generic token-risk siblings such as check_honeypot or analyze_liquidity.

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?

The bridge/cross-chain focus gives clear implied usage context, and the cost line helps an agent decide whether to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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

All RugShield 402 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.