RugShield 402

rugshield_risk_institutional_token_report

Read-only

Generates an end-to-end cryptographic audit report covering bytecode decompilation, honeypot tax simulation, LP lock proofs, holder clusters, and bridge risk. 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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description mainly needs to add operational context. It does so by disclosing the 0.020 USDC cost and the supported networks (Base and Solana Mainnet), plus the report's coverage areas. It still omits latency, payment flow, and freshness details.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The report scope is front-loaded and the cost/network constraint follows immediately.

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 an output schema available, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It supplies the key missing context: what the report aggregates, where it can run, and what it costs. Minor gaps remain around report generation time and whether the report is point-in-time.

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 as an ERC-20 address on Base or a Solana SPL Mint. The description only restates the two supported networks and adds no extra syntax, validation, or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Generates an end-to-end cryptographic audit report') and enumerates the concrete checks the report covers. That scope implicitly separates it from sibling component tools like check_honeypot and analyze_liquidity, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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?

The phrase 'end-to-end' and the listed coverage imply this is the comprehensive option versus individual sibling audits, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The cost and network note is useful context, not usage direction.

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.