1gateway

Token AI risk verdict on Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum: honeypot/rug-pull signals packaged into a short English verdict

base_token_verdict

Use when an agent wants a quick read on an ERC-20 before trading: token-risk scan plus a short AI verdict. Input: address; chain (base, ethereum, arbitrum). Output: JSON verdict (level = deterministic riskLevel, headline, top reasons citing fired signal ids, what to watch) + all risk signals, meme block, simulation, notChecked. Signals, not advice; not a safe verdict. Bad input/EOA: 400, not charged. Example: ?address=0x4ed4E862860beD51a9570b96d89aF5E1B0Efefed Price: $0.011 USDC (Base or Solana) via x402.

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": "base_token_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	EVM chain (default base); monad → 400
`address`	Yes	Token contract on the chosen chain (EIP-55 checksum if mixed case). EOAs, bad checksums → 400 before payment (not charged)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / address / description

Previous value: -"Token contract on Base mainnet (EIP-55 checksum if mixed case). EOAs, bad checksums → 400 before payment (not charged)"New value: +"Token contract on the chosen chain (EIP-55 checksum if mixed case). EOAs, bad checksums → 400 before payment (not charged)"

addedInput schema / properties / chain

Added value: +{
+  "description": "EVM chain (default base); monad → 400",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: it discloses the output shape (level, headline, reasons citing signal ids, what to watch, plus signals, meme block, simulation, notChecked), the 400-no-charge failure mode for bad input/EOAs, and the $0.011 USDC x402 payment model. It stops short of describing latency, rate limits, or how 'level' is derived beyond 'deterministic riskLevel'.

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 use case, then input, output, failure mode, caveat, and example in a tight telegraphic style with no filler sentences. The compression is heavy enough (slash-separated fragments, embedded query string) that some sentences read as run-ons, costing a little scannability.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the input contract, the return-value structure, error behavior, pricing, and the 'signals, not advice' framing — everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly. Nothing material for a 2-parameter tool appears missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates the supported chains (base, ethereum, arbitrum) that the schema leaves unlisted, and supplies a concrete example address. It does not explain the checksum format or the monad→400 rejection beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a token-risk scan plus a short AI verdict for an ERC-20 before trading, with scope limited to base/ethereum/arbitrum. The 'AI verdict' framing does distinguish it from the plain-risk siblings (base_token_risk, base_token_info), but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when an agent wants a quick read on an ERC-20 before trading.' That is clear context, but it never says when to prefer base_token_risk or base_token_info instead, and the 'not a safe verdict' caveat is a disclaimer rather than a routing rule.

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

All 1gateway 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?