SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Rekt News leaderboard of the largest crypto hacks

crypto_crypto_hack_rekt_database

Read-only

Rekt News leaderboard of the largest crypto hacks and exploits: rank, incident name, audit status as listed, loss in USD and date, from the public page (top 1 to 50). Root-cause write-ups and attack technique (e.g. flash loans) are not in the list and are not reported. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_crypto_fundraising_rounds when you need recent crypto and Web3 venture funding rounds; crypto_crypto_liquidations_feed when you need OKX perpetual-swap liquidations for one underlying. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_crypto_hack_rekt_database"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many top incidents, 1 to 50 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`incidents`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description goes further by disclosing sourcing (the public page), a hard coverage cap of 50, and a payment requirement: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana, or Arc, with failed calls uncharged. That payment/auth detail is genuinely useful behavior an agent must know before calling. It stops short of rate limits, freshness, or latency, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 identity and returned fields, then limitations, then alternatives, then price. Every sentence carries information, though the fully-qualified sibling names make the middle section denser than strictly necessary.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: scope, field list, exclusions, alternatives, and cost are all covered.

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 'limit' parameter already carries its range (1 to 50) and default (10). The description's 'top 1 to 50' merely echoes that. Baseline 3 is the right call when the schema does all the work.

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 resource (Rekt News leaderboard of the largest crypto hacks) plus the exact fields returned (rank, incident name, audit status, loss in USD, date) and the scope (top 1 to 50). This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, including the two it explicitly separates itself from.

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?

Names two alternative tools with the conditions that select them (fundraising rounds for venture funding, liquidations feed for OKX perp liquidations). It also states a negative scope: root-cause write-ups and attack technique such as flash loans are not in the list, which tells the agent when this tool will not satisfy a request.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance 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?