Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
ahnlabio

BICScan MCP Server

by ahnlabio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

BICScan MCP 服务器

强大高效的区块链地址风险评分 API MCP 服务器，利用 BICScan API 为区块链地址、域名和去中心化应用程序 (dApps) 提供全面的风险评估和资产信息。

🎉 我们在https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/servers上列出，用于官方集成 🎉

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f9425429-1cb1-4508-b962-81351075258b

主要特点

  • 风险评分：获取各种区块链实体的风险评分，包括加密地址、域名和去中心化应用程序 URL，评分范围从 0 到 100，其中 100 表示高风险。

  • 资产信息：检索指定加密地址的详细资产持有情况，包括加密货币和代币，支持多个区块链网络。

  • 实时扫描：利用 BICScan API 执行实时扫描并接收有关潜在风险和资产持有的最新信息。

  • 安全可靠：具有强大的错误处理和日志记录功能，可确保操作安全可靠。

Related MCP server: hive-mcp-aml-screen

示例输出

如何使用。

您可以根据自己的喜好使用带有uv或docker Python。

根据您的环境，您可以选择使用uv 、 docker或uvx 。

1. 使用uv运行

1-1. 要求

  1. Python 3.10 或更高版本

  2. uv 0.6.x

  3. git

1.2. 克隆存储库

git clone https://github.com/ahnlabio/bicscan-mcp

1.3. 配置claude_desktop_config.json

将以下内容附加到claude_desktop_config.json 。

确保替换：

  • YOUR_BICSCAN_REPO_DIR_HERE ：类似于C:\\Users\\ABC\\repo\\bicscan-mcp或/home/abc/repo/bicscan-mcp 。

  • YOUR_BICSCAN_API_KEY_HERE ：可从https://bicscan.io获取免费 API 密钥（详情如下）

{
  "mcpServers": {
    ... some other mcp servers ...,
    "bicscan": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": [
        "--directory",
        "YOUR_BICSCAN_REPO_DIR_HERE",
        "run",
        "bicscan-mcp"
      ],
      "env": {
        "BICSCAN_API_KEY": "YOUR_BICSCAN_API_KEY_HERE"
      }
    }
  }
}

2. 使用Docker运行

2.1. 要求

  1. Docker 环境

2.2. 克隆存储库

git clone https://github.com/ahnlabio/bicscan-mcp

2.3. 构建 Docker 镜像。

只需在存储库目录中运行make即可构建 docker 镜像。

2.4. 配置

将以下内容附加到claude_desktop_config.json

确保替换：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    ... some other mcp servers ...,
    "bicscan": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "--rm",
        "--interactive",
        "--env", "BICSCAN_API_KEY=YOUR_BICSCAN_API_KEY_HERE",
        "bicscan-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

3. 使用uvx运行

3.1. 要求

  1. Python 3.10 或更高版本

  2. uv 0.6.x

  3. git

3.2. 配置claude_desktop_config.json

将以下内容附加到claude_desktop_config.json 。

确保替换：

  • YOUR_BICSCAN_API_KEY_HERE ：可从https://bicscan.io获取免费 API 密钥（详情如下）

{
  "mcpServers": {
    ... some other mcp servers ...,
    "bicscan": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "--from",
        "git+https://github.com/ahnlabio/bicscan-mcp",
        "bicscan-mcp"
      ],
      "env": {
        "BICSCAN_API_KEY": "YOUR_BICSCAN_API_KEY_HERE"
      }
    }
  }
}

如何获取免费的 BICScan API 密钥？

  1. 访问https://bicscan.io并注册。

  2. 进入个人资料并创建“创建应用程序”

  3. 输入您选择的名称和描述。

  4. 将上述配置中的YOUR_BICSCAN_API_KEY_HERE部分替换为您新获得的密钥。

  5. 重新启动 Claude 桌面。

Available Tools

2 tools
get_assetsB

Get Assets holdings by CryptoAddress

Args:
    address: EOA, CA, ENS, CNS, KNS.
Returns:
    Dict: where assets is a list of assets
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid addresses. The description mentions the return format ('Dict: where assets is a list of assets') but provides minimal detail about the response structure.

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 description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. The main purpose is stated upfront, followed by parameter details and return information. There's minimal wasted text, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner (e.g., consistent capitalization in the Returns section).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter with multiple formats), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a tool that presumably queries blockchain data, more information about limitations, data freshness, or error handling would be beneficial.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'address' parameter accepts multiple formats: 'EOA, CA, ENS, CNS, KNS' (presumably Externally Owned Account, Contract Address, Ethereum Name Service, etc.). This semantic clarification is crucial for proper tool invocation and compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Assets holdings by CryptoAddress' specifies both the action (get) and the resource (assets holdings). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_risk_score' by focusing on asset holdings rather than risk assessment. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from potential other asset-related tools beyond the single sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what scenarios it's designed for, or any prerequisites for its use. The single sibling tool 'get_risk_score' is not referenced, leaving the agent with no comparative context.

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

get_risk_scoreB

Get Risk Score for Crypto, Domain Name, ENS, CNS, KNS or even Hostname Address

Args:
    address: EOA, CA, ENS, CNS, KNS or even HostName
Returns:
    Dict: where summary.bicscan_score is from 0 to 100. 100 is high risk.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by explaining the return format and risk score range (0-100, where 100 is high risk), which is useful beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by parameter and return details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' could be more integrated for better flow.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (risk scoring with various address types), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, but lacks usage guidelines, error details, or behavioral traits like rate limits, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing examples of address types (EOA, CA, ENS, CNS, KNS, HostName), which clarifies the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. This significantly enhances understanding, though it could be more detailed on format constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Risk Score for Crypto, Domain Name, ENS, CNS, KNS or even Hostname Address.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Risk Score,' with explicit examples of address types. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_assets,' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tool 'get_assets.' It lists address types but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedget_assets
    • First observedget_risk_score
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_assets retrieves asset holdings, while get_risk_score calculates risk scores. There is no overlap in functionality, and an agent can easily differentiate between them based on their names and descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with get_assets and get_risk_score. The naming is predictable and readable, using snake_case throughout without any deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a BICScan MCP Server, which suggests a domain involving crypto and risk analysis. This limited set may not cover essential operations like querying transactions, checking contract details, or updating data, making it borderline inadequate for the apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has significant gaps for a crypto/risk analysis domain. While it includes asset retrieval and risk scoring, it lacks basic operations such as querying transaction histories, verifying contract addresses, or performing deeper analytics. This incompleteness could lead to agent failures when handling common tasks in this domain.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • address-intel-api

    TKtokyo
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides counterparty risk checks for any EVM address, returning malicious-history flags, tiered risk scoring, and plain-language summaries via x402 payment.
    -
  • traql MCP server by traql

    traql MCP serverofficial

    traql
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to perform AML and compliance risk scoring for crypto addresses and transactions on Ethereum, BSC, TRON, TON, and Bitcoin, returning 0–100 risk scores, bands, flags, and detailed signals.
    2
    50 npm
    MIT

  • web3-risk-mcp

    MelvTheGoat
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to assess the risk of crypto wallets, tokens, and smart contracts by providing read-only on-chain analysis, 0-100 risk scoring with explanations, fund tracing, and contract inspection before interaction.
    6
    MIT

Appeared in Searches