Toolbooth

EVM token security check

evm_token_security

Read-only

Contract risk checks for a token on Base, Ethereum or Arbitrum from GoPlus Security: honeypot (can't sell), buy and sell tax, mintable, owner privileges (hidden owner, reclaimable ownership, balance changes, pausable transfers, blacklist, changeable tax), proxy and open-source status, top-holder concentration and liquidity, with a plain-English risk level and the findings behind it. The EVM counterpart of token_security. Automated checks can't prove a token is safe. Fails (and is not charged) if GoPlus has no data or doesn't answer. Costs $0.005 USDC per call.

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": {
      "tokenAddress": "<tokenAddress>"
    },
    "name": "evm_token_security"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain (default base)
`tokenAddress`	Yes	Token contract address (0x…)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds context annotations don't carry: the upstream provider (GoPlus), the failure mode ('fails and is not charged if GoPlus has no data or doesn't answer'), the per-call price ($0.005 USDC), and an honest caveat that automated checks can't prove safety. That is exactly the beyond-schema behavior an agent needs before spending money.

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?

Purpose and chain scope are front-loaded, followed by the check list and then the cost/failure caveats. The mid-sentence inventory of owner-privilege checks is dense but each item maps to a real returned finding.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ('a plain-English risk level and the findings behind it'), the failure semantics, and the billing model. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter read-only lookup.

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% and the enum already lists base/ethereum/arbitrum with the base default, so the description repeats rather than extends parameter meaning. The only added signal is that the token must be a contract address on one of those three chains, which is already in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Contract risk checks for a token') and enumerates the exact risk categories returned (honeypot, taxes, mintable, owner privileges, proxy, holder concentration, liquidity). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling token_security as 'the EVM counterpart', so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

States the chain scope and the counterpart relationship, which tells the agent this is the EVM-side choice versus token_security. It does not address when to prefer token_risk_score, token_promotion_check, or address_screen, and gives no exclusions.

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

All Toolbooth 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.

Resources

Need Help?