SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Static search of a VERIFIED Ethereum contract's Solidity

agent_intel_anti_whale_limit_detector

Read-only

Static search of a VERIFIED Ethereum contract's Solidity source (Blockscout) for max-wallet, max-transaction and cooldown rules, with the matching lines. Unverified contracts are reported as such, not guessed. Bytecode-only and non-Ethereum chains are not covered; a hit is a clue, not proof of a trap. Related tools on this server, for a different need: agent_intel_whale_transaction_monitor when you need large transfers on Ethereum in the latest 1 to 10 blocks; agent_intel_bundle_sniper_detector when you need to look at the first Solana slot where a token mint appears. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_anti_whale_limit_detector"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Ethereum contract address 0x... (40 hex characters)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`note`	No
`source`	No
`address`	No
`verdict`	No
`compiler`	No
`findings`	No
`verified`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses the key behavioral fact that unverified contracts are reported as such rather than guessed, and warns that a hit is a clue, not proof of a trap. It also states the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) and that failed calls are not charged, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

The core capability and its verification caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with exclusions and sibling routing after. The pricing sentence is useful but adds bulk; overall the text is dense rather than padded, though it could be trimmed slightly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: data source, confidence caveat, coverage exclusions, cost, and alternatives. Nothing material about invoking it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single address parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no format, validation or constraint detail beyond it. The repeated mention of Ethereum scope reinforces the chain restriction but does not add parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: a static search of a verified Ethereum contract's Solidity source via Blockscout, targeting max-wallet, max-transaction and cooldown rules. It returns matching lines and explicitly states limits (verified-only, Ethereum-only), which an agent can use to rule the tool in or out without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when this tool does NOT apply (bytecode-only contracts, non-Ethereum chains) and names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: whale_transaction_monitor for large transfers in the latest 1-10 blocks, and bundle_sniper_detector for the first Solana mint slot. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?