Skip to main content
Glama

x402-seller — rug protection & safe-alpha for trading agents

Server Details

Rug-check & launch radar for trading agents: composite honeypot score, EVM+Solana, keyless x402.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
wyattpalm2-eng/x402-seller
GitHub Stars
1

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.

Tool Definition Quality

Score is being calculated. Check back soon.

Available Tools

5 tools
catalogInspect

FREE: what x402-seller sells, prices, and how to pay. The paid HTTP API is keyless (pay per call in USDC on Base via x402).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

launch_radarBInspect

Discover what just launched AND rug-screen it in one call: fresh token launches ranked safest-first, each with a verdict (a clean contract with unlocked LP is caution, not clear — most fresh rugs are liquidity pulls). The proactive 'safe alpha' feed. FREE demo (shared daily budget).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'verdict' logic and shared daily budget, hinting at rate limits, but does not state read-only nature, authentication needs, or potential side effects. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, though includes some marketing language. Each sentence adds value, and it avoids verbose repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool, the description lacks details on output structure (e.g., what a verdict contains), how the shared budget affects calls, and any error handling. No output schema exists to compensate, leaving agents underinformed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to mention the 'chain' parameter, its enum values, or the default 'base'. The parameter is simple, but the lack of guidance leaves agents guessing about filtering options.

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?

The description clearly states the tool discovers fresh token launches and performs rug screening in one call, with safe-first ranking and verdicts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rug_check (dedicated check) and vet_token (vetting) by combining discovery and screening.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for proactive safe alpha discovery, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rug_check or vet_token, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

rug_checkInspect

Detailed composite rug/honeypot report for one token: red/green flags, 0-100 risk, live-simulation results, disagreement flag. EVM + Solana. FREE demo (shared daily budget).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase
addressYes
track_recordInspect

FREE, always: the service's public self-graded track record — its rug verdicts on fresh launches graded against what actually happened, hits AND misses. Judge the scorer by its receipts.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

vet_tokenInspect

Go/no-go verdict on a token before trading it: composite rug score (static analysis + live buy/sell simulation + LP-lock/liquidity-pull gate) + market → clear/caution/avoid with reasons. EVM + Solana. FREE demo (shared daily budget); unlimited via the paid HTTP API.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase
addressYestoken contract / mint address

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.