Skip to main content
Glama

x402-solana

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

crypto_pre_trade_verdict

One-call GO/CAUTION/NO-GO pre-trade verdict for AI trading agents: fuses token safety (honeypot, rug, tax, holders), counterparty wallet sanctions screening (OFAC/mixer) and cross-exchange market signal into a single decision with a signed, offline-verifiable receipt. Should I buy this token now? Replaces three separate calls (token-safety + wallet-screen + signal) with one fused GO/NO-GO verdict. EVM chains and Solana. Price: $0.05 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase | ethereum | bsc | polygon | arbitrum | optimism | avalanche | solana (default base)
tokenYesToken contract (EVM 0x+40hex) or SPL mint (base58) to evaluate
walletNoOptional counterparty wallet to screen (OFAC/mixer)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. Discloses fusion of token safety, wallet sanctions, and market signal; mentions signed, offline-verifiable receipt; and provides cost/payment details. Does not describe potential failure modes or whether underlying data is returned.

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?

Dense with useful information in under 60 words. Front-loaded with core purpose and includes cost, scope, and alternatives without any filler.

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?

No output schema, but description covers purpose, scope, cost, and receipt. It lacks explicit return structure, but an agent understands it will receive a verdict and receipt. Could benefit from describing how to verify the receipt or response format.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description aligns with schema (e.g., wallet for sanctions screening) but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clear verb+resource: provides a GO/CAUTION/NO-GO pre-trade verdict. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating it replaces token-safety, wallet-screen, and signal calls. Scope (EVM chains and Solana) adds clarity.

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?

States 'Replaces three separate calls...' which clearly indicates when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Includes the user's decision question 'Should I buy this token now?' and chain scope. Lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All x402-solana toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap between crypto_pre_trade_verdict and solana_pre_trade, both providing pre-trade decisions for Solana. The agent_rank_check and agent_visibility_audit are also similar in purpose but differentiated by depth. However, descriptions are detailed enough to clarify the intended use, so ambiguity is moderate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and often include domain prefixes like crypto_, solana_, and agent_. Minor deviations exist, such as solana_pre_trade lacking the 'verdict' suffix seen in crypto_pre_trade_verdict, and standalone names like gleif_lei and polymarket_odds that don't follow a domain-prefix pattern. Overall, the style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct purpose or tier (e.g., quick check vs. deep audit), and the count feels appropriate for a multi-purpose utility server without being overwhelming or sparse.

Completeness3/5

The server covers several domains, but each has gaps. For example, there is no dedicated wallet address sanctions screening tool (only fused into crypto_pre_trade_verdict), no token price or market data tool outside of the dossier, and no agent search or listing functionality. However, the core risk-check workflows (token safety, pre-trade, agent visibility) are reasonably well-covered with both quick and detailed tiers.

Resources