Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

tech-risk

by io.github.rezearcher
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

chain_token_security

Token security / honeypot detector for a Base mainnet ERC-20: EIP-1967/1822 proxy + upgradeability detection, bytecode dispatcher scan for mint/pause/blacklist/fee-setter/ownership selectors, owner() renouncement check, and a live eth_call state-override simulation testing whether a synthetic wallet can actually transfer() the token. Returns risk_score (0-100) + verdict (clear/review/block) + human-readable flags. Real compute an agent can't trivially self-serve. Cost: $0.005 USDC per call via x402.

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_security"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Describes detailed checks (proxy, bytecode, renouncement, simulation), returns risk_score/verdict/flags, and notes cost. No annotations provided, so description carries burden well. Lacks error handling details.

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?

Packed with information but well-structured: purpose, checks, output, cost. Not overly verbose, each sentence adds value.

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 complexity and no output schema, description covers key aspects: checks, return types, cost. Missing exact output format but sufficient for an agent.

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 100% and description does not add new meaning beyond '0x-prefixed 20-byte ERC-20 contract address on Base mainnet'. Adequate but no extra value.

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?

Clearly states it is a token security/honeypot detector for Base mainnet ERC-20 with specific checks. Distinguishes from sibling 'chain_token_security_preview' by emphasizing real compute and cost.

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?

Mentions cost and that it's non-trivial compute, implying use when serious analysis is needed. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like the preview, but provides clear context.

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