Dechonet MCP

Official Crypto Exchange Address Check

crypto_exchange_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify whether a domain or link is the official address of a crypto exchange, wallet, or dApp and detect impersonation evidence.

Instructions

Check whether a domain or link is the official address of a crypto exchange, wallet or dApp — Korean exchanges (Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, GOPAX, DigitalX/Korbit) and major global exchanges, wallets and dApps — compared with the addresses the companies publish themselves (the Korean exchanges' council member list, app store developer websites, verified GitHub organisations). Verdicts: official, danger (not official and the phishing check found impersonation evidence), not_official (uses a name but is not an official address — the name alone is not impersonation), not_exchange. A domain that uses a name also gets its registration date, the first certificate DechoNet saw for it, and a phishing check of its front page (which may render it). Read-only; no API key; rate-limited.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_exchange_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain or link to check (e.g. 'upbit-event.example' or 'https://…')

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`receipts`	No	Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com
`observation`	No	How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the phishing check may render the front page (a real side effect on a third party), that registration date and first-seen certificate are returned for name-using domains, and that the tool is read-only, needs no API key, and is rate-limited. The annotation of readOnly/idempotent is reinforced rather than merely restated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent segment (sources, verdicts, enrichment, operational traits) carries distinct information. It is a dense single paragraph that runs long — the source list could be tightened — but nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return structure need not be described, yet the description still names the verdict values and the enrichment fields, which is exactly the information an agent needs to interpret a result. For a one-parameter lookup tool the coverage of inputs, outputs, side effects and constraints is complete.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already supplies the domain/URL example, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format or normalization detail beyond confirming that a full link is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check whether a domain or link is the official address of a crypto exchange, wallet or dApp') and enumerates the concrete authorities used as ground truth. An agent can distinguish this from phishing_link_check or lookalike_domains because the description scopes it to official-address verification against company-published sources.

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 verdict taxonomy (official / danger / not_official / not_exchange) tells the agent what outcome space to expect and implicitly when each applies, including the important distinction that a name-misusing domain is not automatically 'danger'. It never explicitly routes between this and sibling tools like phishing_link_check or crypto_check_before_sign, so no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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