devx-address-poisoning-check
Related Servers
Alternatives to devx-address-poisoning-check
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to check a payment recipient against the sender's own on-chain history before funds move, flagging address-poisoning look-alikes, spoofed 'from you' transfers, and fake tokens via the Blockscout PRO API. It also scans a wallet for poisoning attempts aimed at it, returning a verdict of OK, CAUTION, or STOP.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables 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.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to run pre-sign risk checks on transactions, approvals, EIP-712 signatures, token addresses, wallet approvals, sanctions screening, and prompt-injection texts, returning green/orange/red verdicts with machine-readable reason codes before signing.1AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform pay-per-call security verification of wallets, tokens, contracts, dApps, agents, and more via a remote endpoint with no installation.2MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible AI agents to scan crypto transactions for scam addresses, clipboard-hijack patterns, and typos, as well as report scam addresses and check usage, directly in conversation.-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to check whether a crypto token, link, or forwarded "gem" message is a scam by running contract rules, live test trades, creator history, and market data across 64 networks, returning plain-English or Pidgin verdicts. Also supports scanning messages, reviewing a token's past checks, and explaining individual findings.5MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools do genuinely different things: one performs an offline lookalike/checksum check, the other only returns purchasing instructions. The name 'onchain_check_info' and the explicit 'Does not pay' note reduce, but do not fully eliminate, the risk that an agent calls it expecting an actual check to run.
Both names are snake_case, so there is no style clash, but the patterns differ: 'check_recipient_lookalike' is verb_object while 'onchain_check_info' is a noun-phrase/prefix form. Readable, but not a predictable convention an agent can generalize from.
Two tools is thin for a security-check server, and one of the two is purely informational rather than functional. The scope is narrow, so it is defensible, but the surface feels borderline under-built.
The free path covers only a single-address lookalike and EIP-55 check, with no batch checking, no trusted-address list management, and no offline screening against known poisoned addresses. The advertised on-chain scan is a dead end: the server exposes only purchase instructions, so an agent cannot actually execute it.