A
license-
qualityB
maintenanceChecks token contract safety for honeypot, tax, proxy, blacklist, ownership risks, and returns a risk score, enabling rug-pull protection for agents via pay-per-call x402 micropayments.
MIT
bitfence Risk Oracle
Server Details
Pre-transaction token risk checks for autonomous agents on six chains. Read-only; paid via x402.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- bitfenceai/bitfence
- GitHub Stars
- 1
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.6/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation4/5
The two tools have distinct purposes: analyze_token provides a base risk assessment, while contextual_risk adds position-aware context. Descriptions clearly differentiate them, though both are risk assessments and could be confused in some workflows.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming mixes conventions: 'analyze_token' follows verb_noun, while 'contextual_risk' is adjective_noun. This inconsistency is noticeable but still readable and understandable.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the count is on the low end but appropriate for a focused risk oracle. It covers the essential functionality without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the core domain of token risk assessment with a basic and contextual variant. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch or historical analysis), but it's a reasonable v1 surface.
Available Tools
2 toolsanalyze_tokenAInspect
Full risk assessment for a token. Returns risk score (0-100), risk level, confidence, recommendation (PROCEED/REQUIRE_HUMAN_APPROVAL/BLOCK), reasoning, and flags triggered. Equivalent to GET /v1/risk/{chain}/{address}.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Blockchain to query: "solana", "base", "ethereum", "arbitrum", "bsc", or "hyperevm" | |
| address | Yes | Token mint address (Solana) or contract address (Base/EVM, 0x-prefixed) |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return values and API equivalence, adding behavioral context, but fails to disclose idempotency, permissions, or side effects.
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?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence providing the core purpose and outputs, and the second providing API equivalence. No redundant information.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately lists return values. The two parameters are well-covered. However, lacking differentiation from siblings leaves partial incompleteness for selection.
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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new parameter information beyond restating the context, so it meets baseline but does not improve.
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 clearly states it performs a full risk assessment for a token and lists expected outputs (risk score, level, etc.). This differentiates it from siblings like 'quick_check' by implying comprehensiveness, but does not explicitly compare.
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 is provided. The context of 'full risk assessment' hints at primary usage, but alternatives are not discussed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
contextual_riskAInspect
Position-aware contextual risk assessment. Returns the full risk assessment plus position context: estimated slippage, effective cost, max safe position, portfolio concentration, and MEV exposure. Equivalent to POST /v1/risk/contextual.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Blockchain to query: "solana", "base", "ethereum", "arbitrum", "bsc", or "hyperevm" | |
| address | Yes | Token mint address (Solana) or contract address (Base/EVM, 0x-prefixed) | |
| position_size_usd | Yes | Planned position size in USD | |
| portfolio_size_usd | Yes | Total agent portfolio value in USD |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. Without annotations, the description provides only high-level output listing.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second enumerates outputs and API equivalence. Efficient, front-loaded, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers purpose and key outputs, but lacks information on response format, error handling, and usage prerequisites. With no output schema or annotations, some completeness gaps remain.
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?
All four parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear types, examples, and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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?
Explicitly states it performs a position-aware contextual risk assessment and lists specific outputs (slippage, cost, max safe position, etc.), clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'quick_check' or 'analyze_token'.
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?
Implied usage for when a user needs risk assessment with position context, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, nor any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceProvides counterparty risk checks for any EVM address, returning malicious-history flags, tiered risk scoring, and plain-language summaries via x402 payment.
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenanceMulti-endpoint Web3 intelligence service for token risk scanning, pre-trade checks, and signal snapshots, using DexScreener data with x402 payment support.
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceOn-chain Solana token safety for trading agents — traces coordinated wallet funding, same-block Jito bundles, serial-rug deployers and live coordinated dumps into one Exit-Liquidity Risk verdict before a swap. Free tier, then $0.02 USDC/query via x402.1781MIT