Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentFeed

by io.github.seekdaseek
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYesSPL token mint address (base58)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesthe get_token_risk payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_token_risk
toolYesthe tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / mint / maxLength
      Added value: +44
    • addedInput schema / properties / mint / minLength
      Added value: +32
    • addedInput schema / properties / mint / pattern
      Added value: +"^[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{32,44}$"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$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"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the material behavioral fact those annotations cannot express: the call is paid (0.01 USDC via x402 across Solana, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum, Arc), which is a real precondition for invocation. It says nothing about rate limits or failure behavior, but the output schema covers return shape.

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, zero waste: purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by the exclusion and the price. Every clause carries decision-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?

For a single-parameter, read-only, paid lookup with a full output schema, an agent has everything it needs: what it returns, what it does not cover, and that payment is required. No essential calling information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage (base58 SPL mint address, with a length/pattern constraint), so the schema carries the burden. The description reinforces that the input is an SPL token mint rather than a generic address, which is a small but genuine addition.

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?

The description names the resource (SPL token) and enumerates the exact signals returned: mint/freeze authority status, top-1/top-10 holder concentration, and risk flags. It also draws one explicit boundary against a sibling category ("Not a honeypot/LP-lock checker"). It does not differentiate against adjacent siblings such as get_sol_token_check or get_token_holders, which likely overlap.

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?

It gives an explicit exclusion (not for honeypot/LP-lock analysis) and a cost signal (0.01 USDC per call) that an agent can weigh before calling. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use instead for honeypot checks, so routing is left partly 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 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