token_safety_freeFREE. Score band + top-line honeypot/tax/privilege flags for a token {address, chain}. Real result, no wallet. Upgrade to token_safety for the full numeric breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain: ethereum | base | bsc | polygon | arbitrum | optimism. | |
| address | Yes | 0x token contract address. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'FREE' and 'Real result, no wallet,' which are useful behavioral facts. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, or the exact structure of the score band and flags, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, concise and front-loaded with 'FREE' followed by the core function and an upgrade note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output (score band and flags) and mentions the real result. It lacks a detailed response shape but is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity and the schema-rich parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (chain and address), and the description merely echoes {address, chain} without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool provides a 'score band + top-line honeypot/tax/privilege flags' for a token, using specific categories. It clearly differentiates from the sibling token_safety by noting the free version lacks the full numeric breakdown.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description directly mentions 'Upgrade to token_safety for the full numeric breakdown,' providing an explicit alternative. It implies usage for quick, free checks without a wallet, but doesn't enumerate explicit exclusions beyond the upgrade path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool pair (paid and free) clearly delineates a distinct capability: approvals scanning, EIP-712 signature decoding, transaction simulation, and token safety. The free versions are explicitly described as teasers with pointers to the full paid versions, eliminating ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern: base name for the paid tool and base name + '_free' for the free counterpart. There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Although four of the tools are free variants, they serve a distinct tiered-access purpose and do not feel excessive.
The tool set covers the major wallet-safety domains: approval risks, off-chain signature risks, transaction simulation, and token rug-pull detection. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct address reputation lookup or transaction history analysis), but the core workflows are well covered.