No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 6 tools
Most tools are clearly distinct: scoring, profiling, token-specific checks, contract inspection, tracing, and chain listing. However, 'score_risk' and 'check_token_risk' have some overlap when applied to tokens (score_risk already checks tokens, though with a different focus). The descriptions help, but a user might hesitate between the two for a token risk check.
Tools mostly follow a verb_noun pattern: score_risk, get_wallet_profile, check_token_risk, inspect_contract, trace_funds. 'list_supported_chains' is consistent. Minor deviation: 'get_wallet_profile' uses 'get' while others use 'check'/'inspect'/'trace', but it's still a clear verb-noun structure. No mixed casing or vague verbs.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a blockchain risk investigation tool. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect (scoring, profiling, token safety, contract inspection, fund tracing, chain support). This is within the ideal 3-15 range and feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The toolset covers the full risk investigation lifecycle: get a risk score, profile an address, dive into token-specific risks, inspect contract details, trace fund flows, and list chains. A minor gap: there's no direct function to compare multiple addresses or to get a detailed report on a specific transaction or a custom investigation path, but agents can combine these tools to achieve those outcomes.
