boo-x402-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Wallet reputation & risk

wallet_risk

Check a wallet address for scam and phishing flags, age, and activity before sending funds or trusting an unknown address.

Instructions

Reputation check for an address: scam/phishing flags, age, activity. Use before sending funds to or trusting an unknown address.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 USDC per call (x402 on Base). Paid automatically from your configured wallet.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "chain": "<chain>"
    },
    "name": "wallet_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes	Chain: eth, bnb, base, solana.
`address`	Yes	Wallet address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses paid nature and auto-payment, but does not elaborate on data sources, update frequency, or error handling. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

Two focused sentences plus a payment line. No wasted words; front-loaded with purpose and usage.

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 query tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and cost. Could mention output structure, but acceptable given no output schema.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'Reputation check for an address' and lists specific items (scam/phishing flags, age, activity), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wallet_sanctions or wallet_signal.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use advice: 'Use before sending funds to or trusting an unknown address.' Does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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