Check any SPL or Token-2022 mint for rug risk with a 0–100 score covering authorities, holders, LP lock/burn, supply, and age; costs 0.01 USDC via x402.
Solana token rug check — 0.01 USDC. Rug-risk report for any SPL / Token-2022 mint: authorities, Token-2022 extensions, supply, top-10 holders excl. pools, LP lock/burn, age, 0-100 risk score. Cost: 0.01 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | SPL / Token-2022 mint address (base58) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important non-obvious behavior: the call is paid (0.01 USDC via x402). It also pre-announces the report's contents and the risk-score range. It omits failure behavior — what happens on an invalid mint, an unfunded x402 payment, or a token with no liquidity data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the report contents. Minor waste: the price is stated twice ("0.01 USDC" at the start and again as "Cost: 0.01 USDC via x402" at the end).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields and the risk-score range adequately substitutes for a missing output schema, and the cost disclosure is exactly the kind of extra context an agent needs before calling a paid endpoint. Only error/payment-failure behavior is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single `mint` parameter is already documented as a base58 SPL / Token-2022 address. The description reinforces the accepted mint types but adds no format, validation, or example detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource: a rug-risk report for SPL / Token-2022 mints, with the report's contents enumerated (authorities, extensions, supply, top-10 holders, LP lock/burn, age, 0-100 risk score). It is clear what the tool returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_token_report, which an agent could plausibly reach for the same mint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Scope ("for any SPL / Token-2022 mint") implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to or from get_token_report despite that being the obvious overlapping sibling. The agent must infer the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.