CryptoBoss

analyze_contract

Deep contract audit: liquidity, holder risk, bundled supply, honeypot, price manipulation. $0.05.

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": {
      "api_key": "<api_key>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`chain`	No	ethereum
`address`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the cost ($0.05) but omits crucial details like rate limits, required permissions (api_key is required but not explained), output format, and what happens on failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (two sentences), which is concise but sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary details, making it minimally adequate.

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?

For a security audit tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return format, interpretation of results, or any limitations (e.g., only works on verified contracts), leaving significant gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for parameters (chain, address, api_key). The description does not clarify allowed values, formats, or where to obtain the api_key, leaving the agent to guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it performs a 'deep contract audit' listing specific risk factors (liquidity, holder risk, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_solana_token. However, it lacks precision on what the output contains.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or prerequisites. Sibling tools like analyze_solana_token suggest a platform difference, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

All CryptoBoss 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?