Sol MCP — Solana Token Risk & Signals

batch_token_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze risk scores for multiple Solana tokens simultaneously to identify safer investment opportunities based on comprehensive token evaluation.

Instructions

Get risk scores for multiple Solana tokens (up to 10) in one call. Returns results sorted by risk score, lowest (safest) first.

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": {
      "mints": "<mints>"
    },
    "name": "batch_token_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mints`	Yes	Array of Solana token mint addresses, 1–10 items.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Mar 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful context about the 10-token limit and sorted return order, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling beyond what annotations provide.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and constraints, the second explains the return format. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but could better explain the risk score format or error cases. It adequately covers the core functionality and constraints for a batch read operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the 'mints' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch processing, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get risk scores') and resources ('multiple Solana tokens'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_token_risk' by emphasizing batch processing and the 10-item limit.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (for multiple tokens up to 10), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_token_risk' for single tokens, which would be helpful for sibling differentiation.

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

Deploy Server