Skip to main content
Glama

DeFade — Multi-Chain Memecoin Analyzer

by org.defade

Scan a token

get_token_scan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a full DeFade scan on one token contract: token metadata, holder distribution, creator history (wallet age, previous token launches) and the headline risk verdict. Start here for any "is this token safe", "is this a rug pull" or "should I buy this" question. Returns risk.score as a SAFETY score where 100 is clean and low numbers are dangerous, with a rating label. For the inverse — a rug pull probability where high means dangerous — call get_rug_score. Not for a single module in isolation (call that module's tool directly), price or market-cap questions (get_token_price), or checking the caller's own quota (get_usage). Arguments: address and chain; one API unit on any chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain the token is deployed on: solana (default), ethereum, base, robinhood. Required for any 0x address, because the same contract address can exist on several EVM chains. Omit it for Solana. An unsupported value is rejected before any request is spent; EVM chains need a key on an All-Chains plan.solana
addressYesThe token's own contract address, exactly as an explorer shows it. Solana: the base58 mint, 32-44 characters (e.g. 6p6xgHyF7AeE6TZkSmFsko444wqoP15icUSqi2jfGiPN). EVM: 0x followed by 40 hex characters, case-insensitive (e.g. 0x6982508145454ce325ddbe47a25d4ec3d2311933). Never a pool, pair, wallet or deployer address — those come back as not found. Set `chain` to match the address: a 0x address alone cannot say which EVM chain it lives on, and a Solana mint sent with an EVM chain is rejected.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
riskNoThe SAFETY score: score (0-100, 100 is clean), rating, color, flags. Opposite direction from get_rug_score.
tokenNoToken metadata: name, symbol, mint, supply, decimals, creator, mintAuthority, freezeAuthority, marketCap, liquidity.
creatorNoDeployer wallet: address, walletAgeDays, solBalance, totalTransactions, tokenCreations, recentTokens, riskLevel.
holdersNoSame body as get_holders: totalHolders, topHolders, concentration, protocolHoldings, lockedSupply, deferredUnlock, bundles.
successNoWhether the scan completed.
poweredByNoAlways "DeFade.org".
scanCountNoScans of this token in the last 24h.
timestampNoISO time the response was assembled.
analyzedAtNoISO time of the scan itself.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / analyzedAt / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / creator / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / holders / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / poweredBy / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / risk / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / scanCount / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / success / type
      Previous value: -"boolean"New value: +[
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / timestamp / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / token / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "analyzedAt": {
+      "description": "ISO time of the scan itself.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "creator": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Deployer wallet: address, walletAgeDays, solBalance, totalTransactions, tokenCreations, recentTokens, riskLevel.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "holders": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Same body as get_holders: totalHolders, topHolders, concentration, protocolHoldings, lockedSupply, deferredUnlock, bundles.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "poweredBy": {
+      "description": "Always \"DeFade.org\".",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "risk": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The SAFETY score: score (0-100, 100 is clean), rating, color, flags. Opposite direction from get_rug_score.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "scanCount": {
+      "description": "Scans of this token in the last 24h.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "Whether the scan completed.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "timestamp": {
+      "description": "ISO time the response was assembled.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Token metadata: name, symbol, mint, supply, decimals, creator, mintAuthority, freezeAuthority, marketCap, liquidity.",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Previous value: -"Token contract address. A base58 mint for Solana, or 0x-prefixed for EVM chains. Set `chain` to match — a 0x address alone cannot say which EVM chain it lives on."New value: +"The token's own contract address, exactly as an explorer shows it. Solana: the base58 mint, 32-44 characters (e.g. 6p6xgHyF7AeE6TZkSmFsko444wqoP15icUSqi2jfGiPN). EVM: 0x followed by 40 hex characters, case-insensitive (e.g. 0x6982508145454ce325ddbe47a25d4ec3d2311933). Never a pool, pair, wallet or deployer address — those come back as not found. Set `chain` to match the address: a 0x address alone cannot say which EVM chain it lives on, and a Solana mint sent with an EVM chain is rejected."
    • changedInput schema / properties / chain / description
      Previous value: -"Which chain the address lives on. Defaults to solana."New value: +"Chain the token is deployed on: solana (default), ethereum, base, robinhood. Required for any 0x address, because the same contract address can exist on several EVM chains. Omit it for Solana. An unsupported value is rejected before any request is spent; EVM chains need a key on an All-Chains plan."
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important operational context beyond that: the risk.score semantics (100 = clean, low = dangerous), the one API unit cost, rejection before spending a request, and the All-Chains plan requirement for EVM chains. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then systematically covers use cases, return semantics, alternatives, exclusions, and cost. Every sentence carries distinct information, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety semantics, the description provides everything an agent needs to decide when to invoke this tool and how to interpret its headline result. It covers input scope, cost, score direction, naming of sibling alternatives, and explicit non-use cases.

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 schema already fully documents both address and chain, including formats, defaults, and the 'never a pool/wallet' rule. The description adds minimal parameter information beyond the schema, only restating that address and chain are the arguments, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a full DeFade scan on one token contract' and then enumerates exactly what that scan covers. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like get_rug_score, get_token_price, and get_usage by saying what this tool is and what each alternative is for.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Start here' for safety-related questions and names the inverse tool get_rug_score for the opposite framing. It also lists concrete exclusions: single modules, price/market-cap questions, and quota checks, telling the agent exactly when not to use this tool.

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

All DeFade — Multi-Chain Memecoin Analyzer toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct forensic or market-data question—holder distribution, dev sales, launch coordination, funding provenance, behavioral twins, fee fingerprint—and the cross-references explicitly mark boundaries between the overlapping families. No two tools answer the same question for the same token, so misselection risk is low.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 15 tools follow the same get_ + snake_case object phrase pattern, producing predictable names like get_launch_bundles, get_launch_snipers, and get_wallet_links. The uniform verb_noun structure makes the tool set easy to scan and the target of each call clear.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools sits at the upper edge of the ideal range but is justified by the server's broad purpose: aggregate scans, price, liquidity, holders, whales, smart money, launch manipulation, and four complementary provenance tools. Each tool earns its place, and get_usage is a sensible utility for quota management.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full memecoin risk-analysis workflow, from aggregate verdicts and price/liquidity through holder concentration, whale activity, dev behavior, launch bundling/sniping, and four distinct provenance methods. Cross-references leave no dead ends: every follow-up question routes to a named tool.

Resources