web3-risk-mcp

score_risk

Read-only

Assess any EVM address—wallet, token, or contract—with a 0-100 risk score. Get itemized findings, reasons, and confidence levels to evaluate on-chain safety before interacting.

Instructions

Give an address a 0-100 risk score with a reason for every point.

    Works for wallets, tokens, and other contracts: it detects the type and runs
    the matching checks. The result lists each finding, its points, and its source,
    plus a confidence level and anything that could not be checked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain name or ID: ethereum, base, arbitrum, polygon, or bsc.	ethereum
`address`	Yes	An EVM address: 0x followed by 40 hex characters.
`include_trace`	No	Also trace funds one hop out (wallets only). Slower.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`chain`	Yes
`level`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`method`	No	Read the resource risk://scoring-method for the full rule table.
`address`	Yes
`sources`	No
`verdict`	Yes
`data_gaps`	No
`checks_run`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes
`address_type`	Yes
`points_added`	Yes
`contributions`	Yes
`points_removed`	Yes
`decisive_floor_applied`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it detects the type, runs matching checks, returns per-finding points and sources, includes confidence, and discloses that some checks may not be possible. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately, and the second summarizes output details. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the name.

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?

Given the output schema already exists, the description need not explain return values in depth, yet it still covers the key behavioral aspects: scoring range, reason coverage, supported address types, and transparency about uncheckable items. Nothing essential to calling the tool correctly 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%, so all three parameters (chain, address, include_trace) are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the schema carries the full load, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Give an address a 0-100 risk score with a reason for every point.' It clearly distinguishes itself from narrower siblings by stating it works for wallets, tokens, and other contracts, with type detection. An agent can immediately tell this is the general-purpose risk scoring tool.

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?

The description implies usage for any EVM address type ('Works for wallets, tokens, and other contracts') and that type detection routes to the right checks, but it never explicitly names alternatives like check_token_risk or get_wallet_profile, nor states when NOT to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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

Deploy Server