Skip to main content
Glama

tech-risk

by io.github.rezearcher

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.

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are organized into clear families (chain, crypto, defi, pm, enrich, scan) and each targets a distinct data type. The preview tools are explicitly labeled as free samples, reducing but not eliminating confusion with their paid counterparts. Some overlap exists between chain_wallet and chain_balance, and between enrich_domain and enrich_tech_risk, but descriptions clarify the difference.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern using snake_case (chain_balance, crypto_funding, enrich_domain). Preview tools consistently append '_preview' to their paid counterpart. The only minor variation is abbreviations like 'tx', 'pm', 'defi', but these are uniform.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The eight preview tools duplicate the functionality of their paid versions and inflate the count, though they serve a legitimate 'try before pay' purpose. The remaining 14 paid tools cover a wide range of risk data, making the count borderline appropriate.

Completeness4/5

The set covers on-chain balances, token security, DeFi yields, crypto prices, funding rates, prediction markets, domain enrichment, tech-risk CVE scanning, and MCP server auditing, which is a comprehensive risk toolkit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical data, no address reputation, no token price by address), but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources