Skip to main content
Glama
parkyucheol-del

AlphaPipeline

by parkyucheol-del
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

security.token_diagnostic

Combine token risk and contract health audit into one diagnostic report to evaluate honeypot/tax risk and LP lock/burn status before trading an unfamiliar token.

Instructions

Bundles get_token_risk + get_contract_health_audit into one combined
diagnostic report (same GoPlus data, run in parallel, one upstream round
trip), plus a deduped union of risk_flags. Does not compute a composite
score/grade - every field is copied unchanged from the two underlying tools.

Use this right before buying or swapping an unfamiliar token when you want
both honeypot/tax risk AND LP lock/burn status in one call, instead of
calling get_token_risk and get_contract_health_audit separately. Do NOT
use it if you only need one of the two - call that single tool directly
to save a round trip. Does not cover token unlock/vesting risk - use
get_token_dump_risk separately for that.

Args:
    chain_id: EVM chain id, e.g. 8453 for Base.
    contract_address: Token contract address (0x...).

Returns:
    On success: {"success": true, ...combined token_risk + contract_health_audit fields}
    On failure: {"success": false, "error": {"type", "message"}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chain_idYes
contract_addressYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral context: it explains parallel execution, one upstream round trip, deduped union of risk_flags, unchanged field copying, and gives a precise success/failure return structure. This is thorough and leaves no major behavioral surprise undisclosed.

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 well-structured: purpose and usage are front-loaded, followed by args and returns in clear labeled sections. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tool's composition, limitations, usage boundaries, parameter semantics, and return format. An agent has enough context to decide whether to use this tool and to understand what will happen.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing a type, example, and format for chain_id ('EVM chain id, e.g. 8453 for Base') and contract_address ('Token contract address (0x...)'). This is sufficient for these two straightforward parameters, though slightly more detail could be added.

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 states a specific action ('Bundles get_token_risk + get_contract_health_audit into one combined diagnostic report') and explicitly names the underlying tools, distinguishing this from its siblings. It also clarifies what it does not do (no composite score/grade), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this right before buying or swapping an unfamiliar token'), when-not-to-use guidance ('Do NOT use it if you only need one of the two'), and names the exact alternative tools to call instead. It even routes vesting risk to get_token_dump_risk separately.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools