@thryx/mcp-server

thryx_safety_score

Evaluate token risk by entering a contract address to get a safety score (0–100) computed from liquidity, holder distribution, deployer history, and trading patterns.

Instructions

Token safety score (0–100, higher is safer). Computed by the launchpad from on-chain liquidity, holder distribution, deployer history, and trading patterns. Reads the healthScore field from the token detail endpoint.

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_safety_score"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the score is computed from liquidity, holder distribution, deployer history, and trading patterns, and that it reads the healthScore field. This adds context but omits details about error handling, rate limits, or data freshness.

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, front-loading the key output (score range and meaning) and providing relevant computation context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (0–100 scale, higher is safer) and the data source. For a simple one-parameter tool this covers the essential operational context, though it could mention whether the score is an integer or decimal.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'token' as 'Token contract address.' The description adds no additional meaning or format details, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool as returning a safety score (0–100) computed from on-chain factors, and explicitly mentions reading the healthScore field from the token detail endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like thryx_rug_check by stating the exact data source, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative safety-related tools such as thryx_rug_check. The description explains what the tool does but not the context or conditions for choosing it.

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