Tanod MCP server

chainpeek: will this USDC or USDT send go through? pass, warn or fail with a reason per check, read-only

transfer_preflight

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preflight a planned USDC or USDT ERC-20 transfer by checking balances, gas, nonce, blacklist, recipient safety, and simulation, then return a pass, warn, or fail verdict before signing.

Instructions

chainpeek: Preflight a USDC or USDT transfer: balance, gas, nonce, blacklist, recipient, simulation. For OFAC screening use check_sanctions; for a wallet's past pulls use check_wallet_drain. Returns a verdict (pass, warn or fail) for one planned ERC-20 transfer, with a row per check in checks (token balance, gas balance, pending nonce, issuer blacklist for sender and recipient, paused, recipient sanity, address-poisoning lookalike, simulated transfer(to, amount) with its revert reason, decimals and raw amount) and the non-passing ones in reasons. Read-only: nothing is signed or sent. A part that cannot be read is not_checked with a reason (verdict warn); a token without the blacklist function is not_available, not a fail. Lookalike check on Ethereum and Base only. Bad input is a 422 (not charged). Typically 1-4 s. Price: USD 0.01. Free: 10 chain reads per IP per UTC day. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/gas-price-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	The recipient (0x + 40 hex).
`from`	Yes	The sending wallet (0x + 40 hex).
`chain`	Yes	ethereum, base, polygon, bnb or arbitrum.
`token`	Yes	USDC, USDT (the chain's native issuer contract) or an ERC-20 contract address.
`amount`	Yes	Amount in token units as a positive decimal string, e.g. "250.5" (not raw units).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No
`from`	No
`note`	No
`block`	No
`chain`	No
`error`	No	Only on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
`token`	No
`amount`	No
`checks`	No
`limits`	No
`reasons`	No
`verdict`	No
`budget_s`	No
`read_only`	No
`amount_raw`	No
`elapsed_ms`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds real operational context: nothing is signed or sent, unreadable parts become not_checked with verdict warn, a missing blacklist function is not_available rather than a fail, bad input returns 422 and is not charged, typical latency 1-4 s, price USD 0.01 and a free 10 reads/IP/day. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then alternatives, then return shape, then caveats and pricing; every sentence carries information. It is dense for a single paragraph and the 'chainpeek:' prefix plus docs URL add some noise, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

For a 5-param, no-nested-object tool with an output schema, the description still summarizes the return contract (verdict, checks rows, reasons) without over-explaining return values, and covers failure modes, cost, latency and free-tier limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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% and the schema already explains each field (address format, chain enum, USDC/USDT-vs-contract token rule, decimal amount in token units not raw units). The description adds only marginal parameter-level meaning, chiefly that the lookalike check is chain-conditional. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Preflight a USDC or USDT transfer' and enumerates the exact checks (balance, gas, nonce, blacklist, recipient, simulation). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_sanctions, check_wallet_drain, check_token_honeypot and estimate_gas by naming them as alternatives.

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?

States the trigger condition ('one planned ERC-20 transfer') and explicitly routes two adjacent needs elsewhere: OFAC screening to check_sanctions and historical wallet pulls to check_wallet_drain. It also scopes a sub-check geographically (lookalike on Ethereum and Base only), so the agent knows when a result will differ by chain.

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

Deploy Server