Heuristic Solana SPL token risk/signal scan: mint + freeze authority, Token-2022 dangerous extensions, top-10 holder concentration, plus best-effort holder-count/age context. Transparent methodology, conservative (reports 'unknown' over guessing). NOT financial advice. Requires ?mint=.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Base58 SPL token mint address to scan, e.g. EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v (USDC). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses conservative reporting ('unknown' over guessing) and transparent methodology, but does not mention side effects (likely read-only), rate limits, or behavior on invalid inputs. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this is partial coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by methodology and a disclaimer. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, it describes what it checks and its conservative nature, but lacks details on the output format or how results are presented, which an agent might need to interpret the response. The heuristic nature could benefit from example outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented. The description only repeats the requirement to provide a mint address, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a heuristic risk/signal scan for SPL tokens, listing specific checks (mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 extensions, holder concentration). It's a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on risk heuristics rather than generic token info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like solmachina_token_holders or solmachina_token_intel. It only mentions the required parameter, not usage context or exclusions. The existence of a batch sibling (solmachina_batch_token_risk) is not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.