Verdict L402

by io.github.jeannicolasdavid1979

Token contract check

verdict_token_check

Free sample. Before your agent buys or swaps an ERC-20 token on Base: static reading of its contract. Returns allow, review or block with facts: is it a contract, who controls it, can the owner mint, freeze or block, can the code be replaced, is there real liquidity, does the name imitate a known token. Not a buy-and-sell simulation and not a guarantee.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "verdict_token_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	The token contract address on Base (0x followed by 40 hex characters).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does well on output semantics (three-tier allow/review/block verdict plus the specific facts checked) and discloses that the analysis is static rather than a simulation, and that it is a 'free sample' — implying limited scope — with no guarantee. It omits operational context an agent needs: whether any auth or key is required, rate limits, behavior on a malformed or non-contract address, and latency.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and then the return contract, with no filler sentences. The enumerated fact list is long but each item is a distinct risk check that earns its place; the trailing negative sentence is the weakest, though it usefully bounds expectations.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what matters: when to call, what verdict comes back, what evidence supports it, and what it does not do. Remaining gaps are operational (auth, rate limits, error behavior on invalid addresses) rather than conceptual.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already specifying the Base address format (0x + 40 hex characters). The description adds no syntax, chain-selection, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a precise verb and resource — static reading of an ERC-20 token contract on Base — and enumerates the exact facts it returns (contract status, owner control, mint/freeze/block power, upgradeability, liquidity, name imitation). It also rules out two adjacent things it is not (a buy/sell simulation, a guarantee), so an agent can distinguish it from a firewall or guard-type sibling without opening a schema.

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 trigger is explicit: 'Before your agent buys or swaps an ERC-20 token on Base,' which tells the agent exactly when in a workflow to call it. Exclusions are given ('Not a buy-and-sell simulation and not a guarantee'), but no alternative sibling tool is named for cases where the agent wants transaction-level rather than contract-level protection.

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

All Verdict L402 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?