Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

automaton

by uk.firstmention.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

basedue__tokenrisk

Risk flags for a Base token contract: honeypot, mint, ownership and LP-burn checks. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/basedue/tokenrisk

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "basedue__tokenrisk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / size
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "number"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / size
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: exact cost ($0.01 per call in USDC on Base, eip155:8453), the x402 payment mechanism and the specific location of the payment payload (params._meta["x402/payment"]), plus the HTTP verb and endpoint. What it omits is return shape, failure modes, and whether the checks are on-chain simulations or heuristic lookups.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and its checks, followed by cost/payment and endpoint. No filler sentences; each of the three sentences carries distinct information, though the raw URL at the end is of marginal value to an agent invoking the MCP tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a paid, single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, payment mechanics, and check categories, which is the essential calling information. It falls short on the parameter format and on what the response contains (flag list? score? verdict?), which an agent needs to interpret results.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'token' parameter, and the description only implies it refers to a contract. It never says whether the value must be a 0x address, a symbol, or a pair address, and the schema oddly marks it non-required, which the description does nothing to explain. Low coverage means the description should have compensated and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Risk flags for a Base token contract') and enumerates the check categories it covers: honeypot, mint, ownership and LP-burn. It is scoped to Base chain tokens, which separates it from Solana-oriented siblings like solcheck__risk, though it does not name a specific alternative among basedue__check or token_dd__check.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied — an agent should call this when screening a Base token contract for scam risk — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing away from the numerous sibling token-checking tools. The payment prerequisite is stated, which helps, but selection guidance is left to inference.

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

All automaton 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