Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWallet MCP Server

AgentWallet MCP Server

by hifriendbot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_token_risk

Assess an ERC-20 token for honeypot traps, taxes, owner powers, and liquidity before approving or swapping. Returns a risk warning to weigh, not a block.

Instructions

Assess an ERC-20 token before approving or swapping it: honeypot, taxes, owner powers, verified source, holder concentration, DEX liquidity. Uses GoPlus Security (free, no key) with an on-chain fallback. A warning for the caller to weigh, never a block.

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "chain_id": "<chain_id>"
    },
    "name": "check_token_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesERC-20 token contract address
chain_idYesChain ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain_id / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
  2. Addedv1.14.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data sources (GoPlus Security, free, no key, with an on-chain fallback) and the output's advisory nature ('a warning for the caller to weigh, never a block'), which tells the agent not to abort flows on a warning. It omits behavior for unknown/unlisted tokens and any rate or coverage limits.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: the action and checklist come first, data provenance second, and the advisory caveat last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still conveys what the assessment covers and that the result is a warning to weigh rather than a gate. The one notable gap is the shape of the response (flag list vs. boolean verdict vs. score) and what happens when a token cannot be assessed, which would matter for a security tool.

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% with both parameters documented (token address pattern, chain ID), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters — e.g. which chain IDs are supported by the GoPlus path vs the fallback — so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (assess) and resource (ERC-20 token), and enumerates the exact risk dimensions checked: honeypot, taxes, owner powers, verified source, holder concentration, DEX liquidity. This clearly separates it from adjacent siblings like get_token_info (metadata) or check_approval (allowance review).

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: run it 'before approving or swapping' a token, which maps directly to the sibling actions approve_token and the swap path. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly or stating when to skip the check, so it falls just below the top band.

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