@thryx/mcp-server

thryx_rug_check

Checks a token's rug-risk indicators—deployer address, graduated status, trade count, anti-sniper window, and fee tier—to reveal red flags before trading.

Instructions

Rug-risk indicators for a token: deployer address, graduated status, trade count, anti-sniper window, fee tier. Uses the same token detail endpoint as thryx_info, surfacing the fields a rug check cares about.

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>"
    },
    "name": "thryx_rug_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	Token contract address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the endpoint reuse and the surfacing of specific fields, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or the output format, which would add transparency.

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 concise sentences. The first lists the key indicators front-loaded, and the second provides context relative to thryx_info. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete: it lists the returned indicators, identifies the endpoint, and differentiates from a sibling. It could specify the return type or read-only nature, but it is adequate for a basic lookup 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'token' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond confirming it is 'for a token,' so the baseline score of 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 provides rug-risk indicators for a token, listing specific fields (deployer address, graduated status, trade count, anti-sniper window, fee tier). It also distinguishes itself from thryx_info by noting it uses the same endpoint but focuses on rug-check-relevant data.

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 implies usage for rug-risk assessment by referencing the same endpoint as thryx_info and highlighting rug-check fields. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use other tools like thryx_safety_score.

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