Skip to main content
Glama

scan_token

Scan a token contract for security risks including rug-pull, honeypot, and ownership concentration. Pay 0.003 USDC per call via x402 micropayments on Base.

Instructions

Perform a security scan on a token contract. Detects rug-pull risks, honeypot patterns, ownership concentration, mint authority, and other red flags. Costs 0.003 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesToken contract address (0x...) or symbol (e.g. "PEPE", "UNI")
chainNoChain to scan on (e.g. "ethereum", "base", "arbitrum", "polygon"). Defaults to "ethereum".

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:300-320 (registration)
    The tool 'scan_token' is defined in the TOOLS array with its name, description, and inputSchema (requires 'token', optional 'chain').
    {
      name: 'scan_token',
      description:
        'Perform a security scan on a token contract. Detects rug-pull risks, honeypot patterns, ' +
        'ownership concentration, mint authority, and other red flags. ' +
        'Costs 0.003 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base).',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          token: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Token contract address (0x...) or symbol (e.g. "PEPE", "UNI")',
          },
          chain: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Chain to scan on (e.g. "ethereum", "base", "arbitrum", "polygon"). Defaults to "ethereum".',
          },
        },
        required: ['token'],
      },
    },
  • The tool handler case in the CallToolRequestSchema switch statement. Validates that 'token' param is provided, then calls the API endpoint '/api/token-scanner' with token and chain params.
    case 'scan_token':
      if (!params.token) {
        throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidParams, 'scan_token requires: token');
      }
      result = await callApi('/api/token-scanner', {
        token: params.token,
        chain: params.chain,
      });
      break;
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool detects and the cost. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe (no modifications), but that is implied by 'scan'. The description is sufficiently transparent for a scan operation, though it could mention idempotency or side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose and cost/micropayment detail.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no output schema, and 2 fully-described parameters, the description is complete. It lists the detection categories, which compensates for the lack of output schema. Nothing essential 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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema 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 the tool's purpose: 'Perform a security scan on a token contract.' It lists specific red flags detected (rug-pull risks, honeypot patterns, etc.), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_crypto_prices, get_dex_quotes, etc.) which are unrelated.

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: it's a security scan with a cost of 0.003 USDC per call on Base. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor are there exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for token safety assessment, which is adequate.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fernsugi/x402-api-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server