AgentFeed

Token rug check

get_token_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

SPL token rug-risk signals: mint/freeze authority status (revoked = safer), top-1/top-10 holder concentration, and risk flags. Not a honeypot/LP-lock checker. Costs 0.01 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum or Arc).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mint`	Yes	SPL token mint address (base58)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	the get_token_risk payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_token_risk
`tool`	Yes	the tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "the get_token_risk payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_token_risk",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "const": "get_token_risk",
+      "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tool",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is disclosing a paid, x402-metered call at 0.01 USDC per invocation across five chains — a material behavioral fact you cannot get from the schema. It does not cover failure modes or rate/latency behavior, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned signals, then the scope exclusion, then cost last. No filler; every clause carries selection-relevant information.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the two things an agent most needs before calling: what signals come back and that the call costs money. Nothing material is missing for a single-parameter read tool.

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 (mint) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already states 'SPL token mint address (base58)'. The description adds no format, validation, or chain-qualification detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

Names a specific resource (SPL token) and enumerates exactly what it returns: mint/freeze authority status, top-1/top-10 holder concentration, risk flags. It goes further by explicitly excluding adjacent scope ("Not a honeypot/LP-lock checker"), which separates it from siblings like get_honeypot_check, get_sol_token_check and get_token_holders.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not (not honeypot/LP-lock checking) and pins the caller to Solana SPL tokens, which is actionable context. It stops short of positively naming the sibling to use instead for those excluded cases, so routing to alternatives is left to inference.

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

All AgentFeed 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.