web3-risk-mcp

check_token_risk

Read-only

Assess an ERC-20 token before buying: detect honeypot, mint, blacklist, pause powers, taxes, owner concentration, and liquidity lock status.

Instructions

Check an ERC-20 token for scam signs before buying it: honeypot (cannot sell), mint, blacklist, and pause powers, buy/sell tax, owner and holder concentration, liquidity size, and whether liquidity is locked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain name or ID: ethereum, base, arbitrum, polygon, or bsc.	ethereum
`token_address`	Yes	An EVM address: 0x followed by 40 hex characters.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`chain`	Yes
`pools`	No
`taxes`	No
`powers`	No
`symbol`	No
`address`	Yes
`sources`	No
`findings`	No
`is_proxy`	No
`data_gaps`	No	What we could not check. Missing data is not proof of safety.
`owner_pct`	No
`creator_pct`	No
`is_honeypot`	No	True if the token can be bought but not sold.
`top_holders`	No
`holder_count`	No
`liquidity_usd`	No
`lp_locked_pct`	No	Share of pool (LP) tokens locked or burned, so liquidity cannot be pulled.
`on_trust_list`	No
`owner_address`	No
`is_open_source`	No
`creator_address`	No
`owner_renounced`	No	True if the owner gave up control by setting it to a dead address.
`top10_holder_pct`	No	Top 10 wallets' share, not counting burn, locked, or pool addresses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by detailing exactly what the risk check covers, including honeypot detection, mint/blacklist/pause powers, taxes, and liquidity lock status. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is a single dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and a compact, colon-separated list of checks. There is no filler, no repetition of schema fields, and no redundant safety language.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to describe return values. The annotations, the fully documented schema, and the description together provide everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: when to use it, what address to provide, and what risk factors are evaluated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so chain and token_address are already documented in the schema. The description adds one useful semantic cue: token_address should point to an ERC-20 token, not just any EVM address, and the tool is framed as pre-purchase due diligence.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Check an ERC-20 token for scam signs') and then enumerates concrete risk dimensions: honeypot, mint, blacklist, pause powers, taxes, holder concentration, and liquidity. This makes the tool's scope obvious and separates it from generic siblings like inspect_contract or score_risk.

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 phrase 'before buying it' gives a clear, practical context for when an agent should call this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server