agentshield-mcp

scan_contract

Scan any token for rug pulls, honeypots, authority risks, tax manipulation, liquidity, and holder concentration with 14+ checks in under 2 seconds before trading.

Instructions

Full threat detection scan: honeypots, rug pulls, mint authority, freeze authority, proxy backdoors, tax manipulation, blacklist functions, liquidity analysis, and holder concentration. 14+ checks in under 2 seconds. Use this before trading any token.

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": {
      "contract": "<contract>"
    },
    "name": "scan_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain: solana, ethereum, base, bsc, polygon, arbitrum, optimism	solana
`contract`	Yes	Token/contract address to scan

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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. It reveals the scope of checks and performance (14+ checks in under 2 seconds), but does not disclose output format, error behavior, rate limits, or whether the scan is read-only. More behavioral detail would be useful.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key differentiators. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with only two known parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case, the nature of checks, and performance expectations. It lacks detail on output interpretation or edge cases, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the input schema. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states a specific action ('Full threat detection scan') and enumerates concrete checks (honeypots, rug pulls, mint authority, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like verify_contract and deep_scan. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this before trading any token,' providing clear context for when the tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage guidance is direct and actionable.

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