hyperd-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

hyperd.token.security

Assess a token's security risk with a score from 0 to 100. Analyzes honeypot risk, owner permissions, holder concentration, taxes, and source verification. Returns risk band and structured findings for informed trading decisions.

Instructions

Get a token's security risk score (0-100). Ensemble of GoPlus signals: honeypot detection, owner permissions, holder concentration, buy/sell taxes, source verification. Returns score, band (safe/caution/warning/danger), and structured findings. Costs $0.05 in 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": {
      "contract": "<contract>"
    },
    "name": "hyperd.token.security"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contract`	Yes	Token contract address
`chain`	No	Chain. Default 'base'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The tool has no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input, output format, cost, and signal sources, effectively conveying a read-only, safe operation.

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?

Four sentences cover purpose, signals, output, and cost, with no filler. Essential details are front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (score, band, findings) and cost. However, band thresholds or error handling are not covered, which would fully complete the picture.

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%; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as valid chain values or format requirements.

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 retrieves a token's security risk score (0-100) using GoPlus signals, differentiating it from other risk tools by its focus on a composite score with bands.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the cost ($0.05), implying it's a paid tool, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like hyperd.contract.audit or hyperd.wallet.risk.

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