Skip to main content
Glama
kukapay

honeypot-detector-mcp

by kukapay
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Honeypot Detector MCP

An MCP server that detects potential honeypot tokens on Ethereum, BNB Smart Chain (BSC), and Base.

Honeypot is a type of fraudulent smart contract that allows users to buy tokens but prevents them from selling or makes selling extremely difficult.

GitHub License Python Version Status

Features

  • Honeypot Analysis: Check if a token address is a honeypot using the honeypot.is API.

  • Supported Chains: Analyzes tokens on Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain and Base.

  • Markdown Output: Returns detailed analysis in Markdown, including:

    • Token name

    • Address

    • Honeypot status

    • Risk level

    • Buy, sell, and transfer taxes

    • Contract code open-source status

Related MCP server: rug-check-mcp

Installation

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.10 or higher

  • uv (recommended package manager)

Steps

  1. Clone the Repository:

    git clone https://github.com/kukapay/honeypot-detector-mcp.git
cd honeypot-detector-mcp

  2. Install Dependencies:

    uv sync

  3. Installing to Claude Desktop:

    Install the server as a Claude Desktop application:

    uv run mcp install main.py --name "Honeypot Detector"

    Configuration file as a reference:

    {
   "mcpServers": {
       "Honeypot Detector": {
           "command": "uv",
           "args": [ "--directory", "/path/to/honeypot-detector-mcp", "run", "main.py" ]
       }
   }
}

    Replace /path/to/honeypot-detector-mcp with your actual installation path.

Tool

The check_honeypot tool takes a token address as input parameter.

Example Usage

Input Prompt:

Please check if the token at address 0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48 is a honeypot.

Output Markdown:

# Honeypot Analysis for USDC
- **Address**: 0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48
- **Is Honeypot**: False
- **Risk Level**: Low
- **Buy Tax**: 0%
- **Sell Tax**: 0%
- **Transfer Tax**: 0%
- **Contract Code Open Source**: True

License

This project is licensed under the MIT License. See the LICENSE file for details.

Available Tools

1 tool
check_honeypotA

Check if a token address is a honeypot using honeypot.is API

Supports tokens on Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain (BSC) and Base.

Args:
    address: Token address to check (e.g., 0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48)

Returns:
    Markdown string containing honeypot analysis results
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API source (honeypot.is) and supported networks, which is useful context, but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what constitutes a 'honeypot' analysis. It adds some behavioral insight but leaves gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by supported networks and a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, supported networks, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases, which would enhance completeness for an API-based 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter 'address' with a clear example (e.g., 0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48) and explains it as 'Token address to check', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not detail format constraints or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Check if a token address is a honeypot') and resource ('using honeypot.is API'), with explicit mention of supported networks (Ethereum, BSC, Base). It distinguishes itself by specifying the API source and scope, though no sibling tools exist for comparison.

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 implies usage by specifying supported networks and providing an example address, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other security checks) or any prerequisites. Since no sibling tools exist, the context for alternatives is limited.

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

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool has a single, clearly defined purpose: checking if a token address is a honeypot.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'check_honeypot' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. Since there is only one tool, consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations to assess.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a server with 'detector' in its name, suggesting a broader scope. While the tool is functional, the server lacks supporting tools like listing recent honeypots, checking multiple addresses, or getting detailed statistics, making it feel thin and incomplete.

Completeness2/5

The server's purpose appears to be honeypot detection, but with only a check tool, there are significant gaps. Missing operations include batch checks, historical analysis, risk scoring, or integration with other security tools, which limits agent workflows and creates dead ends for complex tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches

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/kukapay/honeypot-detector-mcp'

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