alphapipeline

security.token_diagnostic

Read-only

Use this tool right before buying or swapping an unfamiliar token when you need a single-call combined security check: runs security.token_risk and security.contract_health_audit in parallel against the same GoPlus data and returns both, plus a deduped union of risk_flags and a plain risk_flags_count. Deliberately does not compute a composite score or letter grade - every field is copied unchanged from the two underlying tools. Cheaper than calling both separately. Do not use for token unlock/vesting risk (use unlocks.dump_risk) or if you only need one of the two checks (call that tool directly and pay less). Paid in USDC on Base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain_id`	Yes	EVM chain id, e.g. 8453 for Base.
`contract_address`	Yes	Token contract address (0x...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notice`	No
`chain_id`	Yes
`risk_flags`	Yes
`token_name`	No
`buy_tax_pct`	No
`is_honeypot`	No
`is_mintable`	No
`checks_total`	Yes
`data_sources`	Yes
`generated_at`	Yes
`holder_count`	No
`sell_tax_pct`	No
`token_symbol`	No
`lp_burned_pct`	No
`lp_locked_pct`	No
`is_open_source`	No
`owner_renounced`	No
`checks_completed`	Yes
`contract_address`	Yes
`liquidity_health`	Yes
`risk_flags_count`	Yes
`top_unlocked_holder_pct`	No
`top5_unlocked_holder_pct`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / top5_unlocked_holder_pct
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/destructive=false), but the description adds real behavioral context: it fans out two calls in parallel against shared GoPlus data, deliberately omits any composite score or letter grade, copies fields unchanged, is cheaper than two separate calls, and requires USDC payment on Base. This is well beyond what structured fields convey.

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 usage trigger, then the mechanics, then exclusions and pricing. Dense and information-rich, though a couple of clauses could be tightened; nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional and still partly provided (risk_flags union and count). Payment, parallelism, and the deliberate absence of a composite score are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% with two well-documented params (chain_id, contract_address), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, though it clarifies both tools hit the same contract/chain pair.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: runs security.token_risk and security.contract_health_audit in parallel and returns both plus a deduped union of risk_flags and a count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from token_risk, contract_health_audit, and unlocks.dump_risk, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives the trigger ('right before buying or swapping an unfamiliar token'), the exclusions ('Do not use for token unlock/vesting risk (use unlocks.dump_risk)'), and the alternative ('if you only need one of the two checks, call that tool directly and pay less'). When/when-not/alternatives are all present.

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

All alphapipeline tools Inspect

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.