Skip to main content
Glama

x402-solana

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

crypto_token_safety

Token safety check before buying — is this token a honeypot or a rug pull? Bundles honeypot detection, buy/sell tax, holder concentration, LP lock and liquidity (GoPlus, Honeypot.is, DexScreener) into a single 0-100 token security risk score with a clear buy/avoid verdict. One call replaces three lookups. EVM chains. Price: $0.05 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase | ethereum | bsc | polygon | arbitrum | optimism | avalanche (default base)
tokenYesToken contract address (0x + 40 hex), e.g. '0x833589...2913'

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. It discloses external data sources (GoPlus, Honeypot.is, DexScreener), EVM chain support, payment method (x402, USDC on Base), and cost ($0.05). It also describes the return format (score + buy/avoid verdict). It lacks details on failure modes or edge cases, but is otherwise transparent.

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 description is moderately concise and well-structured, with front-loaded purpose followed by components, usage benefit, chain restriction, and cost. Every sentence contributes value, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 tool's complexity (aggregating multiple services) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return value, pricing, and chain support. It does not detail error handling or scoring methodology, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond restating 'EVM chains', which is already covered by the chain enum. Thus it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a token safety check for honeypots and rug pulls, listing specific checks and a 0-100 risk score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'EVM chains', which excludes Solana tools, and by emphasizing it's a single-call aggregation replacing three lookups.

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 provides clear usage context: 'before buying' and 'one call replaces three lookups' implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explain when not to use this tool, though the EVM chain restriction partially covers that.

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