Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

RugShield 402

by io.github.ak10082247-max
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

rugshield_audit_holder_cluster_map

Read-only

Analyzes on-chain funding origins for the top 50 token holders to detect sybil clusters, dev dump risks, and wash-trading rings. Cost: 0.020 USDC on Base & Solana Mainnet.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
token_addressYesTarget ERC-20 contract address on Base (0x...) or Solana SPL Mint

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoDetailed metric findings
statusYesExecution status
verdictYesCryptographic assessment verdict
risk_scoreNoRisk severity score
token_addressYesTarget token address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's real contribution is the 0.020 USDC per-call cost on Base and Solana Mainnet and the explicit limit that only the top 50 holders are analyzed. That cost/payment requirement is material context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. It omits latency, rate limits, or what happens on payment failure, so not a 5.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first states capability plus detection targets, the second states cost and supported chains. Zero filler and the capability is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary; the description supplies the two things structured fields don't — the paid-cost model and the top-50 sampling limit that bounds the analysis. It could say more about how payment is transacted and whether results are cached, but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning (ERC-20 on Base vs Solana SPL mint). The description adds the top-50-holder scope but nothing about address validation or format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — analyzing funding origins of the top 50 token holders — plus three named detection targets (sybil clusters, dev dump risks, wash-trading rings), which clearly separates it from siblings like rugshield_tgm_holders or rugshield_tgm_who_bought_sold. It does not name a sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears; the agent must infer that this is a pre-trade due-diligence step alongside the other rugshield_audit_* tools. The stated cost and chain scope imply context but don't route the agent between this and the neighboring holder/flow 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 toolsInspect
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