x402-btc-radar

Batch token risk check ($0.05)

token_risk_batch

Read-only

Check risk for up to 10 tokens across Base and BSC in one paid call, accepting either a single chain with multiple addresses or mixed-chain token entries.

Instructions

PAID $0.05 USDC per call (up to 10 tokens) on Base via x402, from the caller's own wallet. Same checks as token_risk. Pass either chain+addresses (single chain) or tokens[] (mixed chains). If no token can be checked you are not charged. Not investment advice.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "token_risk_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	chain for addresses[]
`tokens`	No
`addresses`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses the payment rail (x402 on Base), the $0.05 USDC cost from the caller's own wallet, and the billing exception when no token can be checked. That billing/partial-failure behavior is not derivable from annotations or schema, though rate limits and per-token partial-result semantics are unstated.

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?

Roughly 50 words, front-loaded with the cost and payment rail, and each clause (cost, equivalence to token_risk, input modes, refund rule) carries information. The closing 'Not investment advice' is boilerplate that adds little for an agent.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description defers return shape entirely to 'same checks as token_risk', so an agent gets no description of the result payload or how per-token successes and failures are reported. Billing and input modes are well covered, but the response side is a gap for a paid tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'chain' is described), but the description compensates by explaining that 'addresses' pairs with a single 'chain' while 'tokens[]' carries per-item chains for mixed batches — an either/or constraint the schema does not express. It stops short of saying whether both forms may be supplied simultaneously.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('batch token risk check', up to 10 tokens) and anchors it to the sibling by saying it performs 'same checks as token_risk'. An agent can distinguish it from token_risk (single) and health/project_info without opening any schema.

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?

It gives concrete calling modes: 'chain+addresses (single chain)' versus 'tokens[] (mixed chains)', which is exactly the routing decision an agent must make. It does not explicitly say 'use token_risk for a single token', so the batch-vs-single alternative is only implied.

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

Deploy Server