Skip to main content
Glama

BentCrypto Machine Payments

by io.github.ghstaking
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Paid token risk and security intelligence for AI agents over MCP with x402 payments.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation4/5

The two tools are broadly distinct: token_risk is a general pre-trade risk analysis across Solana and Base, while token_security targets Solana-specific mint/freeze and Token-2022 controls. The semantic overlap between 'risk' and 'security' could cause mild confusion, but the descriptions clarify different scopes.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools use the same token_ prefix and underscore-separated noun structure. The naming pattern is perfectly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is minimal and sits at the low end of appropriateness for a specialized paid-analysis server. The count is not absurdly thin given the niche, but the surface feels sparse.

Completeness4/5

The pair covers general risk screening and a deep Solana control check, which is a reasonable core offering. Minor gaps remain, such as no Base-specific security/control analysis or batch/portfolio checks, but agents can work around these for basic paid risk assessment.

Available Tools

2 tools
token_riskBentCrypto Token RiskA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Paid pre-trade token risk analysis. Supports Solana and Base. The HTTP transport returns an x402 challenge before private analysis executes.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoBlockchain to analyze. Supported values are Solana and Base; defaults to Solana when omitted.solana
addressYesToken mint or contract address on the selected chain. Example Solana: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112. Example Base: 0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
riskNoRisk assessment generated from available on-chain and market evidence.
chainNoBlockchain analyzed.
addressNoToken mint or contract address analyzed.
successNoWhether the analysis request completed successfully.
metadataNoAnalysis provenance and execution metadata.
confidenceNoEvidence confidence and coverage information.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by disclosing that the tool is paid, that the HTTP transport returns an x402 challenge before execution, and that the analysis is private. This helps the agent anticipate the payment/auth flow without contradicting the read-only hint.

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?

Three short sentences, each contributing new information: the paid nature and purpose, chain support, and transport-level challenge behavior. The most important qualifier ('Paid pre-trade') is front-loaded, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema contents.

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 output schema is present and the annotations cover safety, the description captures the essential call context: purpose, supported chains, and the payment challenge flow. It does not spell out the exact risk-analysis output fields, but the output schema likely handles that, and the only minor gap is explaining what 'private analysis' means operationally.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already include chain enum values, defaults, and concrete address examples. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating chain support, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool performs paid pre-trade token risk analysis and names the supported chains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling token_security, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation, but the verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is used before trading and supports Solana/Base, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of token_security. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or conditions under which this tool should not be used.

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

token_securityBentCrypto Token SecurityA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Paid Solana token-control analysis covering mint/freeze authority and Token-2022 control risks. The HTTP transport returns an x402 challenge before private analysis executes.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoBlockchain to analyze. Token Security currently supports Solana only.solana
addressYesSolana token mint address to inspect. Example: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
riskNoSecurity and token-control risk findings.
chainNoBlockchain analyzed; Token Security currently supports Solana only.
addressNoSolana token mint address analyzed.
successNoWhether the security analysis completed successfully.
metadataNoAnalysis provenance and execution metadata.
confidenceNoEvidence confidence and coverage information.
token_2022NoToken-2022 extension and control findings when applicable.
mint_authorityNoMint-authority finding when exposed by the analysis engine.
freeze_authorityNoFreeze-authority finding when exposed by the analysis engine.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints by disclosing that the tool is paid and that its HTTP transport returns an x402 challenge before the private analysis runs. This is important operational behavior not present in annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence captures purpose and scope, and the second flags the payment/challenge behavior. All included information earns its place.

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?

With a rich output schema, 100% schema documentation, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete for invoking the tool correctly. The only notable gap is lack of guidance about how to satisfy the x402 challenge or when to choose the sibling token_risk tool, but the essentials are covered.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the Solana chain constraint and the example mint address. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states a specific resource ('Solana token-control analysis') and what it covers ('mint/freeze authority and Token-2022 control risks'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'token_risk', but the naming and paid/Solana framing make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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?

The description communicates clear context: this is a paid analysis, Solana-only, and requires handling an x402 challenge before execution. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of token_risk, but the 'Solana only' constraint and payment gate give sufficient usage boundaries.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • Changedtoken_risk3 fields changed
      • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
        Previous value: -"Token mint or contract address."New value: +"Token mint or contract address on the selected chain. Example Solana: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112. Example Base: 0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006."
      • addedInput schema / properties / chain / description
        Added value: +"Blockchain to analyze. Supported values are Solana and Base; defaults to Solana when omitted."
      • changedOutput schema / (root)
        Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Paid token-risk analysis result. Exact evidence fields depend on the selected chain and available provider coverage.",
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "description": "Token mint or contract address analyzed.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "chain": {
+      "description": "Blockchain analyzed.",
+      "enum": [
+        "solana",
+        "base"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "confidence": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Evidence confidence and coverage information.",
+      "properties": {
+        "coverage_percent": {
+          "description": "Percentage of expected evidence covered when available.",
+          "maximum": 100,
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "metadata": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Analysis provenance and execution metadata.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "risk": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Risk assessment generated from available on-chain and market evidence.",
+      "properties": {
+        "level": {
+          "description": "Machine-readable risk level when available.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "score": {
+          "description": "Normalized risk score when available.",
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "Whether the analysis request completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • Changedtoken_security3 fields changed
      • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
        Previous value: -"Solana token mint address."New value: +"Solana token mint address to inspect. Example: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112."
      • addedInput schema / properties / chain / description
        Added value: +"Blockchain to analyze. Token Security currently supports Solana only."
      • changedOutput schema / (root)
        Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Paid Solana token-security analysis result. Additional fields may be returned as the security engine evolves.",
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "description": "Solana token mint address analyzed.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "chain": {
+      "description": "Blockchain analyzed; Token Security currently supports Solana only.",
+      "enum": [
+        "solana"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "confidence": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Evidence confidence and coverage information.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "freeze_authority": {
+      "description": "Freeze-authority finding when exposed by the analysis engine."
+    },
+    "metadata": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Analysis provenance and execution metadata.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "mint_authority": {
+      "description": "Mint-authority finding when exposed by the analysis engine."
+    },
+    "risk": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Security and token-control risk findings.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "Whether the security analysis completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "token_2022": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Token-2022 extension and control findings when applicable.",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. 2 tool updates
    • First observedtoken_risk
    • First observedtoken_security

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • a2a-x402-mcp-services

    Disseveru
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables agents to access production-grade paid MCP tools with real on-chain x402 v2 settlement, including EVM wallet risk scoring, payload normalization, and facilitator discovery, all discoverable via Bazaar-compatible metadata.
    MIT
  • opendexter by Dexter-DAO

    opendexterofficial

    Dexter-DAO
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An MCP server that enables AI agents to search, pay for, and call paid APIs using the x402 protocol, with automatic USDC settlement.
    2
    MIT
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