Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
x402-weblens-mcp

x402-weblens-mcp

by bartenderthiago82
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

RugProbe Report: token due diligence ($0.05)

rugprobe_report

Run full due diligence on a Base token: verify the project website lists the contract, check domain age and socials, then get a risk score and clear/caution/avoid verdict.

Instructions

Full due diligence on a Base token in one call: everything rugprobe_check does, plus the project's website (does it really list this contract? fake-site check, domain age, socials), a clear/caution/avoid verdict, a 0-100 risk score and a short summary. Automated risk signals, not financial advice. Costs $0.05 USDC.

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>"
    },
    "name": "rugprobe_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesToken contract address on Base (0x...)
websiteNoThe project's official website (optional, enables the website checks)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.05 USDC charge, that outputs are automated risk signals rather than financial advice, the verdict taxonomy (clear/caution/avoid), and the 0-100 score plus summary. It stops short of latency, behavior on unverified/new tokens, or what happens when the optional website is omitted or unreachable.

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 the core value proposition and structured with a colon-separated enumeration of extras, so the differentiator appears immediately. The trailing 'Costs $0.05 USDC' duplicates the price already in the title, a small redundancy, and the parenthetical list is dense but informative.

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 an unannotated tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (verdict, risk score, summary, website checks), what it costs, and the liability framing — enough for correct invocation. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior (missing website, unverified contracts) and what the risk score actually measures.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the address pattern and the note that website 'enables the website checks'. The description's mention of website checks largely restates the schema and adds no format or validation detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full due diligence on a Base token in one call') and explicitly positions itself against the sibling: 'everything rugprobe_check does, plus...'. It also enumerates the distinctive outputs (website/contract match, domain age, socials, verdict, risk score, summary), so an agent can tell exactly what this call yields versus the lighter check.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the comprehensive option superseding rugprobe_check, with the cost stated so an agent can weigh it. What's missing is an explicit exclusion — it never says when to prefer the cheaper rugprobe_check instead (e.g., quick screening or low-stakes lookups), leaving that inference to the agent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools