Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

tech-risk

by io.github.rezearcher
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

chain_token_report

Token security check (honeypot detector + rug-pull risk score) for a Base ERC-20 in one call, decision-grade trade-safety verdict: SAFE | CAUTION | AVOID plus risk_score (0-100) and reasons, bundling honeypot/sellability simulation, owner-renounced + mint/pause/blacklist/fee-setter/upgradeable-proxy checks, token symbol/name/decimals, and Uniswap v3 WETH-pool liquidity (USD). Replaces many RPC calls and prevents a bad trade. Cost: $0.005 USDC per call via the shared MCP payment gate (the direct HTTP endpoint GET /chain/token-report is $0.01 — MCP tools/call is gated at a flat $0.005 per request).

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": "chain_token_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYes0x-prefixed 20-byte ERC-20 contract address on Base mainnet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers unusually rich context: the exact output shape (SAFE | CAUTION | AVOID, risk_score 0-100, reasons), the specific checks performed, and a concrete cost model ($0.005 USDC via the shared MCP payment gate vs $0.01 direct HTTP). It implies a read-only analysis operation without stating it explicitly, which is the only gap.

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 purpose and verdict semantics, and every clause carries information. The pricing sentence is slightly long and partly repeats the cost concept, but the density is justified for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the return fields (verdict, risk_score, reasons) and the underlying checks, plus cost/payment behavior. An agent has enough to decide and invoke 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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'token' as a 0x-prefixed 20-byte Base mainnet ERC-20 address. The description adds only the 'Base ERC-20' framing, which is already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a 'token security check (honeypot detector + rug-pull risk score) for a Base ERC-20 in one call,' and enumerates the bundled checks and verdicts. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic RPC tools, but never names or differentiates itself from the very similar MCP siblings chain_token_security and chain_token_report_preview.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Replaces many RPC calls and prevents a bad trade' implies the use case, and the pricing note helps an agent choose between the MCP gate and the direct HTTP endpoint. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use and no routing guidance against the near-duplicate siblings chain_token_security / chain_token_report_preview.

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

All tech-risk 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