Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

hostdefi-x402

by io.github.verixiaapps
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Full token due-diligence report

token_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

PAID ($0.35/call). HostDeFi full due-diligence report — one document: the A+–F verdict, on-chain signals (authority state, bundled-launch read, holder concentration, Token-2022 traps on Solana), the dated verdict-history series, trend-radar mentions and a rug-ledger cross-check. Call once WITHOUT x402_payment to receive the x402 payment requirements (an accepts array); pay one of them with any x402 client/wallet, then call again with x402_payment set to the base64 X-PAYMENT payload. You are only charged when a result actually comes back.

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "token_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYessolana, ethereum, base, arbitrum, …
addressYestoken contract address / mint
x402_paymentNobase64 X-PAYMENT payload (omit on the first call to get payment requirements)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the paid nature, the exact two-call x402 payment sequence, and the guarantee that the caller is only charged when a result actually comes back. This is significant behavioral context that annotations do not capture.

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?

The description is dense but purposeful, covering cost, report contents, and the two-step payment flow without fluff. It could be improved with structural formatting, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a paid, multi-step x402 tool with no output schema, the description explains prerequisites, call sequence, payment mechanics, and what the returned report will include. It is not missing essential call-time information, although an explicit note about possible errors or non-payment responses would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that x402_payment should be omitted on the first call scrape, matching the schema, but it does not materially extend parameter understanding beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific resource ('HostDeFi full due-diligence report') and enumerates the report's contents (verdict, on-chain signals, verdict history, trend-radar, rug-ledger). It is clear and detailed, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like token_risk_verdict or token_risk_deep.

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?

The description gives explicit calling workflow: first call without x402_payment to receive requirements, pay one of the accepts array, then call again with x402_payment set. It also clarifies charging behavior. Missing an explicit statement of when to prefer this over other token tools, but the workflow itself is strong.

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

All hostdefi-x402 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