Base Token Check

base_token_check

Base token safety check before you buy or accept a token: simulates a real buy, wallet-to-wallet transfer and sell on the deepest Uniswap v2/v3 or Aerodrome WETH pool, and reports honeypot (sell reverts), buy/sell/transfer tax, liquidity depth, LP burn share, proxy/upgradeability, owner and privileged functions (mint, blacklist, pause, fees), owner supply share, with a 0-100 risk score and OK/CAUTION/DANGER verdict. Costs 0.02 USDC on Base, paid via x402.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "base_token_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the simulation mechanism, the specific DEXes/pool selection, the complete set of reported signals, the verdict scale, and a concrete cost of 0.02 USDC paid via x402. It omits latency, failure modes, and whether the simulation touches real funds, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the safety-check purpose front-loaded and the cost stated last. Nearly every clause adds information, though the run-on packing of eight report signals makes it slightly harder to scan than a short list would be.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers mechanism, chain, pool selection, all return fields, verdict semantics, and pricing. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'address' parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies the input is a Base token address via repeated 'Base token' framing, but never states whether it is a contract address, whether symbols are accepted, or what format is required.

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?

Names a specific verb (simulates buy/transfer/sell), a precise resource (deepest Uniswap v2/v3 or Aerodrome WETH pool on Base), and enumerates the output (honeypot, taxes, liquidity, LP burn, proxy, owner privileges, 0-100 risk score, verdict). An agent knows exactly what this tool produces without opening the 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?

Explicitly frames the trigger condition: 'before you buy or accept a token.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. There are no sibling tools to differentiate from and no exclusions stated, so it stops short of the full 5.

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

All Base Token Check 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?