SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

EVM token honeypot check from honeypot.is: simulated

crypto_honeypot_detector

Read-only

EVM token honeypot check from honeypot.is: simulated buy/sell success, honeypot verdict, buy/sell/transfer tax, risk flags, open-source status and the main DEX pair liquidity. EVM only (no Solana). Simulation results can change with pool state; not financial advice. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_nft_floor_wash_detector when you need ERC-721 collection activity on Ethereum from Blockscout. 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": "crypto_honeypot_detector"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Token contract address, 0x + 40 hex characters
`chainId`	No	EVM chain id (default 1 = Ethereum)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`risk`	No
`chain`	No
`flags`	No
`buyTax`	No
`source`	No
`symbol`	No
`address`	No
`chainId`	No
`isProxy`	No
`sellTax`	No
`decimals`	No
`mainPair`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`riskLevel`	No
`isHoneypot`	No
`openSource`	No
`pairAddress`	No
`transferTax`	No
`liquidityUsd`	No
`totalHolders`	No
`simulationSuccess`	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?

Going well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses the data source (honeypot.is), the volatility caveat that simulation results can change with pool state, and the exact cost model: $0.002 per successful call, nothing charged on failure. Those are the operational facts an agent needs before deciding to spend on a call.

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 first sentence front-loads capability and return fields, followed by scope, caveat, alternative, and pricing in a logical order. The pricing and disclaimer sentences are dense but each carries decision-relevant information; the sibling recommendation is the only part that could be trimmed for a tool this narrow.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need no prose), the description still summarizes the signal set, and it covers cost, source, and staleness caveats that the structured fields cannot express. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100% with only two fields, and both the address format and the chainId default are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond reinforcing that only EVM chains are valid, so this scores at the schema-covered baseline.

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 ('EVM token honeypot check from honeypot.is') and enumerates the returned signals: simulated buy/sell success, verdict, taxes, risk flags, open-source status, DEX pair liquidity. It also scopes the tool explicitly to EVM with '(no Solana)', which separates it from the Solana-focused siblings in the list.

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?

It gives a clear applicability boundary ('EVM only (no Solana)') and routes one adjacent need to a named sibling, crypto_nft_floor_wash_detector, with the ERC-721 condition spelled out. It does not state an explicit primary use case (e.g. 'call before swapping an unfamiliar token') or name near-neighbors like crypto_token_holder_concentration, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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?