Skip to main content
Glama
DeFadeLtd

DeFade

Official
by DeFadeLtd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Rug pull probability

get_rug_score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess a token's rug pull risk with a 0-100 danger score, verdict label, and driving signals. Higher score means higher danger; use only when asked for rug probability or likelihood.

Instructions

Rug pull probability for one token: a 0-100 score where HIGHER MEANS MORE DANGEROUS, a verdict label, and the individual signals that drove it. This is the opposite direction from get_token_scan's safety score. Call this tool ONLY when the user explicitly asks for a rug probability or rug likelihood; every general "is this safe" or "should I buy" question goes to get_token_scan instead. Not for the evidence behind the number — it names the signals but does not list the wallets; for who is behind the risk call get_wallet_links, get_dev_tracker or get_launch_bundles. 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
tokenNoThe address that was scanned (on get_token_scan, the full token metadata object instead).
fusionNoCross-signal wallet correlation; wallets list is empty on non-Pro keys.
signalsNoEach contributing signal: what fired, its weight and its explanation.
verdictNoPROBABLY SAFE (<25), SOME RISK (25+), ELEVATED RISK (45+), HIGH RISK (60+), EXTREME RISK (75+), or RUGGED.
coverageNo"full" when the Pro signal set contributed, "free" when only the free signals did — a "free" score has seen less evidence.
rugScoreNoRug probability 0 (safe) to 100 (critical). HIGHER IS MORE DANGEROUS.
poweredByNoAlways "DeFade.org".
timestampNoISO time the response was assembled.
bundleSubScoreNoThe bundle component of the score.
proChecksLockedNoHow many Pro-only checks were withheld.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv0.2.3
    • changedOutput schema / properties / bundleSubScore / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / coverage / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • changedOutput schema / properties / coverage / description
      Previous value: -"Which inputs were available; a score without liquidity or holder data is weaker and says so."New value: +"\"full\" when the Pro signal set contributed, \"free\" when only the free signals did — a \"free\" score has seen less evidence."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / coverage / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / fusion / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / poweredBy / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / proChecksLocked / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / rugScore / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / signals / type
      Previous value: -"array"New value: +[
+  "array",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / timestamp / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / verdict / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: higher score means more dangerous, it returns a verdict and signals but does not list wallets, and it costs one API unit on any chain. 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?

Each sentence earns its place: result shape, direction, routing rule, evidence limitation, and cost. The most decision-relevant content is front-loaded, and the tool selection guidance is compact enough not to bloat the description.

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?

With a rich input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations present, the description still covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: score direction, when to call, what not to use it for, which siblings handle adjacent use cases, and cost. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters thorougly with enum, defaults, examples, and failure cases. The description adds only 'address and chain; one API unit', which is a billing/cost note rather than parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'rug pull probability for one token', and defines the result shape as a 0-100 score, verdict label, and driving signals. It explicitly distinguishes from get_token_scan by calling out the opposite direction, so an agent can select the correct sibling without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: only on eplicit rug probability or rug likelihood requests, and routes general safety/buy questions to get_token_scan instead. It also names specific alternatives for evidence-behind-the-number questions, leaving no ambiguity about which sibling covers which case.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools