Skip to main content
Glama

Cybercentry Verification

by uk.co.cybercentry
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ethereum Token Verification

ethereum_token_verification

Check an Ethereum or EVM token contract before buying: rug pull, hidden tax, liquidity legitimacy and holder concentration risk. Token due diligence returned as a scan report. Costs $1.00 per call, paid in USDC over x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain name or EVM chain ID: ethereum (1), base (8453), arc (5042), robinhood (4663), optimism (10), polygon (137), arbitrum (42161), bsc (56), avalanche (43114), gnosis (100), blast (81457). Defaults to ethereum.
chain_idNoLegacy: network, 1 mainnet or 2 testnet. Use chain instead.
platform_idNoLegacy: 1 Ethereum or 17 Base. Use chain instead.
contract_addressYesToken contract address
subscription_tokenNoOptional Cybercentry subscription token. Uses your plan quota instead of paying per call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Chain name or EVM chain ID: ethereum (1), base (8453), arc (5042), robinhood (4663), optimism (10), polygon (137), arbitrum (42161), bsc (56), avalanche (43114), gnosis (100), blast (81457). Defaults to ethereum.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / chain_id / description
      Previous value: -"Chain ID (e.g., Mainnet 1, Testnet 2)"New value: +"Legacy: network, 1 mainnet or 2 testnet. Use chain instead."
    • changedInput schema / properties / contract_address / description
      Previous value: -"Contract Address"New value: +"Token contract address"
    • changedInput schema / properties / platform_id / description
      Previous value: -"Platform ID (e.g., Ethereum 1, Base 17)"New value: +"Legacy: 1 Ethereum or 17 Base. Use chain instead."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "chain_id",
-  "platform_id",
-  "contract_address"
-]New value: +[
+  "contract_address"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the cost ($1.00 per call) and payment method (USDC over x402), which is critical for an agent to know. It also mentions the output as a scan report. It doesn't detail rate limits or failure modes, but the disclosed cost and payment are significant and responsibly disclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that first state the primary purpose and specific checks, then the output and cost. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the schema coverage and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know what the tool does and what it returns (a scan report). It mentions the checks performed and the cost. It doesn't describe the report structure in detail, but that may be acceptable for a verification tool. The lack of an output schema is slightly compensated by the explicit checks listed.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, such as the chain default or legacy parameters. No extra clarification or examples are provided, so it stays at baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking Ethereum or EVM token contracts for rug pull, hidden tax, liquidity legitimacy, and holder concentration risk before buying. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like base_token_verification by specifying Ethereum/EVM chains, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear context: use before buying a token to perform due diligence. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined and implies the appropriate scenario. The existence of sibling tools like base_token_verification suggests potential alternative routing, but this is not stated.

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

All Cybercentry Verification toolsInspect
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