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}.
| 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) |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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 mixes conventions: 'analyze_token' follows verb_noun, while 'contextual_risk' is adjective_noun. This inconsistency is noticeable but still readable and understandable.
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.
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.