Wicked MCP server

token_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a token contract for honeypot, mint authority, holder and liquidity concentration, and tax risk, returning a transparent score with raw source data on EVM and Solana before you buy or interact.

Instructions

[Token Risk Oracle] Free, public, no signup. Aggregates real on-chain risk signals from GoPlus Security for a token contract — honeypot detection, mint/ownership authority, holder & LP concentration, buy/sell tax, trust-list status — into one transparent risk score. Never a bare safe/unsafe claim: every flag GoPlus didn't return data for stays null, and the raw source data ships alongside the score.

Use when you are about to buy or interact with a token contract and want honeypot, mint authority, holder and LP concentration and tax signals (EVM and Solana). Not for wallet or address risk (use wallet_check) or protocol vetting (use protocol_health_score).

Behavior: read-only and free; no key or payment needed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "chain": "<chain>"
    },
    "name": "token_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes	Required. ethereum, bsc, base, polygon, arbitrum, optimism, avalanche, fantom, zksync, linea, scroll, or solana. A numeric EVM chain_id also works.
`address`	Yes	Required. The token contract address (EVM) or mint address (Solana).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds material context beyond them: free and no signup/key, GoPlus as the upstream source, and the null-not-false convention for missing flags. It also discloses that raw source data is returned alongside the score, which prevents an agent from over-trusting the aggregate.

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?

The core purpose and the null-handling caveat are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. Slightly long with two dense parenthetical signal lists, but no filler or marketing fluff that fails to inform invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape: a transparent risk score, null flags, and the raw upstream payload. Combined with clear input scope, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 both parameters are already documented including the chain enum values and the numeric chain_id fallback. The description only adds a scope note ('EVM and Solana'), which the schema already conveys via its chain list. 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource framing ('[Token Risk Oracle] ... aggregates real on-chain risk signals ... for a token contract') and enumerates the exact signal families covered. It is clearly distinguishable from the risk-adjacent siblings it names.

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?

Explicit trigger ('about to buy or interact with a token contract') plus explicit exclusions that route to the right alternatives: wallet_check for address risk, protocol_health_score for protocol vetting. No inference required.

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

Deploy Server