Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

x402-solana

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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).

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_token_safety"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

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
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